




































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































- 

* 4? • 

* v ^ ** 




<v A. A G v ''o, *07* 4 A 
A y . ‘ o v c o"« * ^ 0 -$ 

+*0* : .^ mx - •“ •* - 




*?+ A 
o > 


.a/ v*-> v^V V 

.0’ ,>V'. *> V ,<•». o. a0 .*”'. •> 

^ *v a . vj 




• A 


: * Q 

>* <* ° 

<. *<T.~A .0' A> *077* A <* '*•* 

.o* .°_ 1 ° V A % 

«« ^ »N * jg’fff/rp^, ~y. 

*b >* ‘ ^ o^ 


A 




> ^ 

* a > 

rt» 1 ^ ^ • *<, 2>» « V.’ ' rl* * '^Ji / /l!>^y' * 

^ *7w% . ^ . 0 . A - 0 ^ % * 077 * a 

% ^ A %> A 0 n 



<o Y 



° ^5 °^v 

. «> o 

^ -...« a .. * 


r* o * 

• 1 a 9 ^ 

4* »VGfeV« ^ ^ /. 
: v^ v : 

: A A ■ 
<, .. .•* A V 

*, 4 C° .*—■*- 0 

i A°- * 



'o K 


tf / 1 





>y 0 ^ 

>* 0 o ^ * 

c\ AT .»•• 

_ y ?V s /A V a 4 

t ^ ‘P 

■A"%* ° 

,* V > *. . . 

‘ A <\ '». . ,C 

4> .. ■ . . ^S>. 




° A ^ 

* <L> O 

* e m o 9 4* O 

r + A v % * f * °^ c 

• A* ^ 

: : 

* V ^ 

...‘A >'/ V'^77?*'^ 

aG ^ v f • , rjA , o " • ^ A 

• C3 V 0 X •~ v »n^^s* ^ r • 

o a o■ jOv- •„ 

-b. *>w* A o \ < w-«v „o ^ ■ 

<f> # o M o 0 v^r *«ii' a9 

%'JwC5>L% °V#». ^ 



* C 

■ * $ * 




1 V^ v *_ 

a 0 

__ ,* ^ * •>;%#V K 4 A? 

o, *'TT^* A <,'».»* .O v 

' °o 4+* .’^.% /..- 


O' oM 0 -*. 'O 


^ 0 A ^ 



VV 


o V 





4 o 

o a/ >f> 

f <3_ 1 ’ C' rt o' ^ # >^K^V «> 

* t- °* c\ «,9~ »*V% c* 

^ Sjt&i/C. V A ^ A^ /jaVa'* *<ev 




❖ A ' 

vv ' 





A 'Jk 

■ •* '-0^. • 

« «y <z* *<.'*&&#*'■* x 

v *7tvT* A 

o' o 0 ** • ♦ ^o . *■ 

C V? -I*®- * 

\ 



^ .-^ <* 


r oK 



P IV^V V- 

<?•- A .VW- V A* ,'SmB%.'. 


4 O 

® <y *<* 

> v> 

'* »‘AL.'. ^ . -- -* ., v 

l° ^ civ * yvjnm^ ii * %<, 

- s 

* ; > 
- - 4 A 

A v , t * • * <£. 0^ o 0 

A *>^. ^ 4 ° 

*. •’bv* :§mz&* W ;*a 

* .0 -t- * * 4 c> 

r * ~ x. - VIIvaSS* N v 

* cP & «.r 

A° •*» A 



^ a6 

. \ C° °o 

b ++o* •■ 

^: A ■-. 

* «V °^ *"' „ 

I V s »*••- c\ a0 

t ♦ jA^^/k 0 * 1 







v »:* 


• ^ ^ »’j 

: V<\ v ; 

* c> •* 

^ *o_ "'TVV' A 




4 O v * \0 >7*. 

^ ^ V % ‘^>° .. \> ■ 

-0^ ^aL:+ > N> •!••-. ^ ^ 

‘ + -'^'- ^ \/ : r . 

; A V^ \\ \l / 

■* A. V ^ o * A? 






* A> 

* <c v 


, - ^ a 

0 X 


: . 

* * -. 0< ‘ L ■’■'TCT*’ A <“* '••> A' 

■>- 0 .v^ 


s«; «5 ^ 

> ' bv N 


^-0' ;«W 


°o.‘.rr,*’ a 0 ' 'V'* 

* ’.* "* -v 5 **. 


k |C’ f A 














The dogma of ‘^nostolical Succession” is doing mjph harm 
to Christianity. Mfe profo4ndest sophistry and the most specious 
arguments are const^^^^aking their appearance in its support. 
Books and tracts, and even periodicals, are devoted to it. 
Sermons are preached by scores and by hundreds, to keep it 
alive; many ministers who are capable of doing much good 
in a better cause, seem to have embarked their talents in it; 
and a great ado is made in the world about it. 

Bishop Green, of Mississippi, is almost my neighbor; he is 
the intimate friend and associate of many of my most intimate 
friends, though my own personal acquaintance with him is very 
slight. I speak in the most perfect sincerity and frankness 
•of him, when I say — what every body knows who knows him 
at all — that he is a gentleman of distinguished learning, talents, 
character, and abilities. His exemplary piety and zealous labors 
as a minister of the gospel, and bishop of the diocess, are 
abundantly known to every body who knows him. His urbanity, 
frankness, and engaging manners are proverbial, and his friend¬ 
ships are as warm as his attachments are sincerp. He is a Christian 
gentleman, — if he were not, I should not address these public 
letters to him. And what I admire in him, further, is, that he 
advocates the cause of “ succession ” with an open boldness, and 



r 





vi 


PREFACE. 


indefatigable zeal, which I would were engaged in a better 
cause. In this lie is doing much harm I think. Hundreds are 
misled, and are propagating the same error. 

A few weeks ago I was requested by some friends in the city 
of Vicksburg, and thereabouts, to write a pamphlet on “ succes¬ 
sion” to counteract these tendencies. I felt reluctant to engage 
in an argument which has. already enlisted the best talent of the ^ 
church, in present and past ages ; but it was urged upon me, and* 

I consented to try. Since that time other engagements have 
presseii^me on every hand. T vvo-thhjfjgMttLC time I have been 
absent from home; part of the been written on 

steamboats and such like places; and in much roughness and 
imperfection, they are given to the public. 

I have written for the Church—for Christianity—for the 
cause of Truth. And I respectfully ask ministers of the gospel 
of all denominations, and Christian men of all classes, to read 
what I have written. If the letters are deemed worth your 
attention, give them a wide circulation where they can do most 
good, and God and the church will reward you, and hundreds 
who shall be freed from the delusive heresy in question will rise 
up and call you blessed. 


K. A 


Near Yazoo City, February , 1853. 



(/TV 


i/t-'-'t 


fa 






^fdcA^u. 0#~<>K 4 .. ffaj^br £rit 

■ • . ... ^ a.;-s tr-ir, ';•’' , /} : . f 

/£> ’ Ul'4u.>ns V— tfcZi'Z-- s } :\y L. 


LETTERS ON APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

«* £•" >n4st~str \J ~iU . ?"> *•• 

) _ 


'lu*- 




r 1 


Aa 


To the Right Rt vert > 

a*~ 


INTRODUCTORY,. 

M. GrREEN, HD., 




y^sAopo/’ theT)ioajss of Mississippi: y- 

Rev. and Dear Sir: —Efaving yielded to the 
solicitations of friends who' have desired me to do so, 
k 1'have commenced to address you a short series of 

■ .letters on “Apostolical Succession;’’ and shall take 
J occasion to refer, perhaps frequently, to your sermon, 
preached a few months ago in Jackson, and recently 
published, on “ Tiie Divine origin and unbroken 

TRANSMISSION OF MINISTERIAL AUTHORITY.” 

I desire, in all frankness and candor, to state to 
you, that I feel embarrassed in the undertaking, because 
of the relation subsisting between us. The high and 
'distinguished position you occupy as a divine, not only 
in this particular region, but in America, (I mean no 
flattery at all, but speak of simple well known facts.) 
would seem not to admit of the possibility, or even to 
tolerate the idea, that you should be personally and 

Vj L-0~ 


t-i 



r x+,-iJk^b f 

* _ iM 






■ (/ 


ft* 







8 


LETTERS ON 


publicly controverted by one of so humble a position, 
and so unknown to the world as myself. But when, 
on the other hand, I remember, that however great 
the disparity between us, as to talents, acquirements, 
or as to position in the eye of the world, that still, 
my all of this world and the next is embarked in the 
•cause of Christian truth ; and that, moreover, I feel 
it m^ bounden duty, whether I will or no, on all 
occasions, without regard to be called taste 

or propriety, to sustain and defena that truth to the 
utmost of my capacity; I feel almost free to step 
forward at any time, without stopping to ask questions 
about popular distinction, or venerable years, or official 
elevation, and explain or defend these truths, as far 
as I may be able, for this simple reason, that my 
Master requires it. 

When you revert, therefore, Reverend Sir, to these 
simple considerations, I know very well that you will 
assent to the correctness of my reasoning, and admit 
me to the privilege of addressing you in this public 
manner, on this public and highly important subject. 

And again: no man is perfect — all men are liable 
to fall into error. The prejudices of interest and of 
early education are strong with the best of us ; and 
sometimes, in our very best endeavors to do good, a 
sober retrospection, and the advantages of a more 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


9 


extended experience, show us that evil has resulted, 
in some unforeseen way, from our labors. And perhaps 
we need, often times, more than we receive, the assist¬ 
ance of sober counsel and a friendly review of our 
thoughts and productions. Often times, too, the reading 
of our best read men, is partial and one-sided, in 
relation to some things. We think we are looking a 
subject full in the face, and are viewing it impartially; 
when really, all th4M*Le, the point of observation we 
occupy, only admits of our taking a side view. The 
light shines full here, and every lineament appears to 
the best possible advantage; while, as to the other 
side, whether it possess beauty or deformity, strength 
or feebleness, our conclusions are the same. 

I have read your sermon carefully, and find much 
in it to admire, and hope for the best, as to any religious 
influence it may produce; but at the same time, if I 
am not greatly mistaken, it contains some errors of 
a religious or ecclesiastical character, which, on exami¬ 
nation, will be found well calculated, though, of course, 
by no means intended, to lead some persons astray. 
I believe it contains errors of almost the highest 
imaginable importance. Indulge me, therefore, if you 
please, a little. And if what I say shall be found 
to be worthless, it is easy for it to be thrown aside. 
You can do it in a moment, the public will be sure to 


10 


LETTERS ON 


do it, and not the least harm will have been done, 
further than this, that my friends who have requested 
me to write this review, will find that they were 
mistaken in the selection of their man. ’ Nay, your 
sermon will stand on a better footing than it does 
now — that is, a little better. It will be seen, then, 
to possess the ability of standing firm against the argu¬ 
ments of at least one person, who aspires to become 
your competitor. But on the 04wMk>y, if m y arguments 
shall prove to be sound, and shall commend themselves 
to your judgment, let them be heeded. All I ask is 
a careful reading. If the truth sustains me, let me 
be sustained; and if not, let this little publication fall 
as harmless and as still-born as you please. The 
question in issue is important, but my argument must 
speak for, and take care‘of itself. 

I have one word more to say, Reverend Sir, and 
I wish to say it in all the candor, fairness, and integrity, 
which I possess. I know that my style of writing 
is very faulty, in many respects, and perhaps in 
few things more than in this: that oftentimes, in 
argument, I appear to be what is called severe. My 
friends say, that sometimes they find something of 
irony and satire in my scribblings,- when I never thought 
of such things. I intend in the letters which may 
follow this, merely and simply to set forth the truth. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


H 


I write for the truth, and for nothing else. I have no 
victory to gain, no triumph to achieve over any one; 
much les3 would I meditate such a thing in regard to 
the worthy and venerable Bishop of the Diocess of 
Mississippi. If any remark shall slip from my pen that 
shall appear to be harsh or disrespectful to yourself or 
your church, it must — I beg that it may — be con¬ 
sidered otherwise. I mean no such thing. I have no 
such sentiment withknne. But I know I am afflicted 
with a plain, blunt, uncouth, matter-of-fact way of 
expressing myself. But as I am going to debate this 
question with you, Reverend Sir, I will not attempt, 
for one moment, to disguise the fact—though I must 
necessarily write these letters in great haste, and amidst 
a press of other engagements, and though I am deter¬ 
mined they shall be as brief almost as brevity itself, 
yet, as I have undertaken them — I expect to look up 
what I conceive to be the most prominent errors of 
this doctrine, and do them all the damage I can with 
truth. 

In looking at what I conceive to be the results of 
this doctrine of succession in Diocesan Episcopacy, as 
I find them enstamped upon the face of those portions 
of our Zion where they obtain, I shall be under the 
necessity, it seems to me, of speaking in great plainness 
of your church and its external operations, in contrast 


12 


LETTERS. 


with other churches where the doctrine is repudiated. 
This may be unusual in discussions of this sort. But 
I beg to be understood that I am not looking after 
etiquette, or public expectation, or public taste, or any 
thing of the sort; I am in search of one simple thing, 
and that only — I have neither eye nor ear for anything 
else — that is, the truth. The shortest, quickest, and 
most effectual way in which I can find the truth, is the 
course I must be allowed to pursue. If I shall be 
interrogated as to matters of taste, custom, or propriety, 
I have one, and but one answer to make, which is this: 
Are my facts true f are my conclusions sound? If I 
bear myself in the truth of fact and history, and my 
arguments drawn therefrom cannot be overturned by 
the force of logic, I shall have accomplished what I 
design. 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 

R. A. 


LETTER II. 


HUMAN ASSOCIATIONS CONTRASTED WITH THE TRUE CHURCH. 

Reverend Sir : — The scope of your sermon appears 
to inculcate the necessity of a true Christian ministry, 
embodied in the true successors of the Apostles, acting 
under the sanction and direction of heaven, in contra¬ 
distinction to mere human associations for the promotion 
of morals. In this, it appears to me, you are certainly 
correct. Human associations may promote the good of 
society and of individuals in various ways, it is very 
true. It is in this way we establish and keep in a 
healthy condition the political state. In this way we 
regulate commerce, promote health, reward industry, 
encourage morality, inculcate and establish peace and 
liberty, and in various ways promote good order and 
well being in society. And although religion is a great 
and powerful auxiliary to these things, and perhaps 
we might be ready to admit that these blessings and 
advantages could not, to any great extent, be secured 
without its aid; yet they are not Christianity, they 
are not religion. They are temporal advantages, and 


14 


LETTERS ON 


only temporal advantages, secured by human instru¬ 
mentality, however much Christianity may aid in such 
enterprises. 

But the religion of Christianity, as you properly 
argue, is quite a different thing. The Christian religion 
is that system of faith and practice which will alone 
enable men so to live, that when they die they may 
inherit eternal life. Human associations and human 
efforts may — or at least in this argument of yours, 
and in this of mine, we may safely, for the sake of the 
argument, admit that they may — enable men to live 
usefully and comfortably, and in peace; but we must 
boldly contend, as I am truly glad to see that you do, 
that they cannot secure peace in death, or a seat in 
heaven. 

I join you then, Reverend Sir, most heartily in 
keeping up, before the world, the clear and broad 
distinction between human associations for temporal 
advantage, beyond which they cannot by possibility 
reach, and religious association in the true Church of 
God, which alone can secure eternal advantages. Let 
no man suppose that human associations, because there 
is some good in them, can supersede or supplant the 
Church of God. No such thing: human associations 
are temporal; they have their origin and end in this 
world. The life and power of the Church of God is 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


15 


spiritual; its origin and end is in heaven. There is, 
therefore, the same difference, essentially, between them 
as between earth and heaven. Whatever advantages 
may be gained upon earth, of a temporal character, 
they are not the spiritual advantages of future life in 
the world above. 

So far, then, we are certainly agreed. I am glad to 
hear you so boldly remark : 

“ If you or I were to establish a society for our own 
benefit and that of our neighbors, however well it might 
be adapted to the end in view, we could claim for it no 
authority or binding force beyond what our own will 
and acts could give it.” 

Human associations, by whatever name they may 
be called, or even though they may loudly cry, “lo, 
here is Christ,” muj&l^fot, either with your consent or 
mine, assume to themselves the prerogatives of God’s 
Church. 

But may you not, Reverend Sir, be in error as to the 
marks by which you identify the Church of Gcod , or as 
to the mode by which you proceed in search of it. You 
contend that a church can only exist where its ministers 
have received ordination from another minister, who is 
in the direct line of successive ordinations, coming down 
in uninterrupted personal descent from one of the 
Apostles. That all associations of men under the 


16 


LETTERS OX 


superintendence of persons, of no matter what title, 
but who are not ordained and set apart for the gospel 
ministry in this line of succession from the Apostles, 
are mere human associations, as above explained and 
agreed upon, in contradistinction to the true Church 
of God. 

Now, sir, whether this succession of ordinations in 
“ unbroken transmission/’ as you call it in your title 
page, is or is not necessary absolutely to the validity of 
an ordination to the Christian ministry, is a question 
which' I need not discuss in these letters. It is not 
important in the view I am about to take of your 
sermon. A question very different from this will be 
looked at, viz.: the necessity of successive ordinations 
from the eleven Apostles down, or the twelve, if you 
please, confined exclusively to a line , not of ordained 
ministers, but of Diocesan Bishops. 

It is unpleasant, or at least it is unnecessary, to come 
in collision with an opponent on points which are not 
pertinent and essential. Let us agree as far as we can, 
or as far as we may, and only disagree when it is 
necessary. 

We are agreed as to a broad line of demarkation 
that must be insisted on as existing between the true 
Church of God and mere associations of men for 
“ expediency ” and “ popular favor,” as you express it. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


17 


And our object now is to fix upon some rule by which 
we can determine between the true church and those 
human associations who style and consider themselves 
churches, without proper authority. 

And I understand you to contend that those Christian 
associations whose governing ministers are ordained in 
the line of “ unbroken transmission ” from the Apostles, 
and they only, are the true church; and that all those 
associations of persons claiming to be Christians, whose 
ministry are not thus ordained, are mere human asso¬ 
ciations. They lack a valid ministry, or, quoting again 
from your title page, “ ministerial authority,” which is, 
you say, absolutely necessary to the existence of a true 
church. This I understand to be your position. If 
you occupy ground any higher or any lower than this, 
I am unable to ascertain it directly from your sermon; 
and I have already intimated that we need not argue 
this point. You may or you may not be correct. 

Let me not be misunderstood here. I say that from 
this sermon of yours, Reverend Sir, I am unable to 
discover that you claim any thing more for a ministry, 
on this point, than successive ordination from the 
Apostles; or in other words, that a minister must be 
ordained by a minister who is himself ordained, and so 
on, tracing the line backwards until you arrive at one 
of the twelve Apostles, chosen by our blessed Saviour. 


18 


LETTERS. 


The sum of this doctrine is, then, it seems to me, 
that you deny the validity of lay ordination. This is 
the altitude and acme of your argument, so far as I 
am able to understand it. Is ordination by ordained 
ministers all that you claim ? It would seem so from 
your sermon. But an appendix added to it afterwards 
seems to teach a very different doctrine. 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours, very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER III. 


AS TO WHAT IS MEANT BY APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, AND 
CONTENDED FOR BY YOURSELF. 

Reverend and Dear Sir: — To show that I am 
not mistaken as to your marks of a true church, and 
what you consider essential in an ordination, as I have 
set forth in the preceding letter, I will quote from your 
sixteenth page. Not that I apprehend any difference 
on this point between you and myself, but I wish, 
before I go further, to fix thi3 matter definitely with 
all your readers and all mine. You say: 

“ Let it suffice to say, and I say it in the fear of 
God, that no important fact in ancient or modern 
history is so capable of proof — I had almost said of 
demonstration — as that of unbroken transmission of 
ministerial authority, from the Apostles’ days to our 
own. This is what we mean by 4 apostolic succession ,’ 
a thing, though much talked of and much derided, bqt 
seldom seriously considered, and therefore but little 
understood, which may be new to the ears of some that 
hear me, and painful to others, but which, nevertheless, 
is one of God’s own truths; a truth which was never 


20 


LETTERS ON 


questioned during the first fifteen hundred years of the 
Church’s existence, and which even now, in this age of 
division and man-worship and self-will, is acknowledged 
and practiced by nearly nineteen-twentieths of the 
Christian world.” 

A succession of ordinations , or an “ unbroken trans¬ 
mission,” then, is the thing which is necessary, and the 
only thing which is necessary to a valid ministry and a 
true church. “ This is what we mean by the 6 apostolic 
succession,’ ” and it is what I mean by “ apostolic 
succession.” I think you are mistaken, however, in 
saying that the fact of this succession of ordinations is 
more easily proved than any other important fact of 
ancient or modern history, much less does it, I think, 
approach to any thing like u demonstration.” But let 
that pass. 

Bishop Green, allow me to ask, does the above 
quotation from the sixteenth page of your sermon 
contain your real sentiments ? If it does you are 
greatly misapprehended and greatly misunderstood in 
this community. Your own sermon, now before me, 
is calculated to deceive the people, and you are bound, 
I consider, to undo the false impressions it is making. 
You are universally understood to hold tenaciously to a 
succession of ordinations which comes through a line 
of ordaining diocesan bishops, and bishops only, in 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


21 


contradistinction to ordinations which come down from 
the same Apostles, through a, line of presbyters and 
bishops indifferently, or a line of ordained ministers. 

These two kinds, or lines of succession, are widely 
different, and clearly distinct from each other. There 
are some persons who contend — and Percival and 
Chapin, to whom you refer for authority, in your 
appendix, are of the number, and Dr. Ilock and Hobart 
and others — that the only succession which is valid, is 
that which descends through the persons of diocesan 
bishops. They utterly repudiate that which comes 
down through presbyters and bishops in common, or 
rather, the body of the ordained ministry; but contend 
that bishops, and bishops alone, have power to ordain. 
And you, sir, as I before observed, are universally 
regarded as belonging to this school. 

But you cannot if- you would, nor can any one for 
you, for one moment pretend that you restrict valid 
succession to those ordinations which come down through 
the persons of bishops, so long as the sixteenth page of 
vour sermon is before them. For it is there stated that 
what you “ mean by the apostolic succession ” is that 
continuation of ordinations from one ordained minister 
to another, which “was never questioned during the 
first fifteen hundred years of the Church’s existence,” 
and which now “ is acknowledged and practiced by 


LETTERS ON 


22 

nearly nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world.” I 
well recollect, where you got that expression, that suc¬ 
cession was acknowledged by “ nineteen-twentieths of 
the Christian world,” you copied it — upon trust, I 
suppose — from that very loose and by no means 
careful writer, Bishop Hobart. But if you mean that 
succession in bishops was not questioned before the 
Reformation, your history, you will see upon reflection, 
is by no means admissible. 

You know very well, and so does every reading 
man, that the restriction of valid ordinations to a line 
of bishops was abundantly questioned by the early 
w r riters. That is, it was not only questioned, but boldly 
denied, as soon as in the nature of things it could have 
been; which was as soon as bishops claimed distinction 
and superiority over elders or presbyters ; which was 
long after the days of the Apostles. You must certainly 
be well aware, that when a distinction began to be 
claimed between bishops and elders, and the former 
asserted superiority and a right to rule, that it was 
abundantly contended — whether rightfully or not, is 
not now the question — that in the days of the Apostles, 
bishops and elders were the same persons, the same 
office, and of the same ordination ; and that, therefore, 
bishops , as such, could claim nothing as distinguished 
from elders, or presbyters, which is the same. You 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 2S 

know, for instance, that Jerome, who, I believe, wrote 
in the fourth century, contended that 44 a presbyter , 
therefore , is the same as a bishop .” He said further: 
44 Before, through the instigation of the devil, there 
were different parties in religion, and it was said among 
different people, I am of Paul, I of Apollas, and I of 
Cephas, the churches were governed by a common 
council of presbyters . ’’ 

You know that many pages of language like this 
can be quoted from several of the Fathers, and by 
subsequent writers, down to the reformation. You 
cannot , therefore, in the face of the reading of this 
age, say, that the 44 unbroken transmission of minis¬ 
terial authority,” through diocesan bishops , 44 was not 
questioned during the first fifteen hundred years of the 
Church’s existence,” for we all know that it was; 
whatever you may affirm, of 44 an unbroken trans¬ 
mission ” through the body of the ministry, bishops, 
elders, and presbyters, indifferently. 

In the days of the Apostles, you are well aware, 
and for several centuries afterwards, the term bishop, 
presbyter, and elder, meant the same thing, in common 
parlance, and were used indifferently and interchange¬ 
ably, in regard to the same persons, as I will show you 
more fully by and by. The only 44 truth,” then, which 
could have been questioned, in those early times, on 


24 


LETTERS ON 


this point, was, as to the exclusive authority of ordained 
ministers , presbyters, bishops, or elders, to ordain 
persons to the ministry. You are hardly right, I 
think, in saying, unqualifiedly, that even this was not 
questioned for fifteen hundred years; though I acknow¬ 
ledge it was-not very seriously or formidably questioned. 
You cannot, therefore, be understood to mean a suc¬ 
cession of ordinations confined to a descending line of 
bishops , as that term is now understood. 

Nor can you possibly be understood to speak of a 
line of succession thus restricted, for you say, the 
succession you hold to, is acknowledged and practiced 
by nearly nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world. 

Now, whether so large a proportion of Christians hold 
to any kind of apostolical succession, coming down in 
any way, is not material now, but I am sure, that you 
cannot possibly state, that nineteen-twentieths of the 
Christian world acknowledge and practice the doctrine 
of succession through bishops only. For it is noto¬ 
rious, that not one-twentieth of living Christians do so 
acknowledge and practice, even though you call papists 
Christians, which, in this sense, I am sure you do not, 
for the doctrine of a succession of bishops by divine 
right, is not even the papal doctrine. Their divine 
descent inheres only in the Pope, and the bishops are 
his servants made at his will. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


25 


And moreover, for another reason, you cannot possibly 
claim, that so large a proportion of Christians are with 
you, in the doctrine of succession in bishops only, and 
then claim to be, wdiere every body places you, on the 
platform of succession, exclusively through a line of 
diocesan bishops jure divino. For you and I know 
very well that this kind of succession is not, nor was it 
ever the creed or tenet of any church since the Saviour 
lived upon earth. It is a doctrine held to by a portion 
of the ministers and members of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in the United States, and by a portion of those 
of the Church of England ; but no church upon earth , 
neither yours nor any other, ever affirmed the doctrine, 
or adopted it as a part of its creed. You cannot point to 
the council or synod or other authoritative ecclesiastical 
congress, that ever adopted it. It is the doctrine of 
nobody, much fuss as has been made about it, except a 
mere handful of bishops and a few others, who constitute 
a portion of almost the very smallest church in America, 
and a few Puseyites of England and of this country. 
But “the Christian world” Roman Catholics and all, 
if you wish to include . them, repudiate the doctrine 
of apostolic succession in a line of diocesan bishops 
exclusively by divine right, with almost unexampled 
unanimity. 

Where you stand, my dear Bishop Green, I am not 

3 


26 


LETTERS ON 


able to say. Universal fame classes you amongst the 
Bishop Successionists. But your sermon, now under 
review, preached on this very subject, and on an occas- 
sion too, of an ordination about to be performed by 
yourself, not only does not say so, but portions of it, 
particularly what I have quoted, is unintelligible upon 
any other hypothesis than your holding to the broad 
doctrine of succession in the ministry . This doctrine is 
practiced, that is to say, none but ordained ministers 
ordain to the ministry — in all the churches in Europe 
and America, with perhaps some very unimportant 
exceptions. So if your sermon is intelligible, you 
believe in the validity of the ministry of the Baptist, 
Presbyterian, Methodist and other orthodox churches in 
the United States, and of the reformed churches of 
Europe. For they do not practice lay ordination. * 

You say that successive ordinations from the Apostles, 
are necessary to a valid ministry. And in your Appendix 
you say that this line of succession may be and is, traced 
back from Bishop White, the first American Bishop, of 
your church, to the Apostle John, and that there is not 
an unbroken link in the chain. Very well, then if the 

* When the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches, are 
spoken of in these letters, the writer intends to include all the several 
organizations that range under these general heads, which will 
include all the churches in this country, that are considered orthodox. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


27 


fiftieth part of this is true, the Baptists, Presbyterians 
and Methodists are on very safe grouud. For a succes¬ 
sion confined to bishops, will be fifty times more likely 
to fail, than when it is brought down generally, in 
bishops, elder3 and presbyters. We of these churches 
are certainly secure. For if you have u an unbroken 
line from the Apostles’’ through bishops only, surely 
we have, among the whole of the ordained ministry. 
Your argument, if it proves anything, proves fifty time3 
more for us than you attempt to prove for yourself, 
supposing you to advocate High Church Episcopacy. 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours, very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER IV. 


SUGGESTION AS TO THE REASON OF THE THING. 

Reverend Sir : — I have some fear after all, that 
notwithstanding all I have said in the preceding letter, 
you may wish to shift your ground, and fall back upon the 
doctrine of succession in diocesan bishops exclusively. 
If you chose to do so, I have no objections; though in 
looking at this restricted and exclusive succession, held 
up in juxtaposition to a common succession in the 
ministry, I shall really be under the necessity of asking 
you to accompany me a little way into the scriptures. 
Although in your sermon, you look elsewhere, entirely, 
for arguments, yet for myself, I acknowledge my in¬ 
ability to conduct this particular point in the argu¬ 
ment, with any thing like satisfaction to myself, without 
examining a few texts. I hope, in fact, I will almost 
say, I take it for granted, you will not object to this 
course. Pardon me for insisting upon it. 

But before we undertake to look at these two kinds 
of succession, by the light of scripture, allow me, if you 
please, to make a few general observations in regard to 
both. There seems to be some difficulty in the way, 
particularly in the exclusive bishop succession. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


29 


What is the design of a church and a ministry ? 
Surely this, and this only: The promotion of godliness 
in faith and practice, that men may be induced to live 
according to the conditions of salvation, and so get to 
heaven. The church and the ministry are means by 
which an end may be secured. Now all these means, 
in the whole machinery of the Christian system, are 
perfectly adapted to the circumstances and conditions of 
men. And not only are they thus perfectly adapted, 
but the adaptation is plain to our observation in every 
case. If this, in every case, is not clearly seen without, 
it is seen with, the light of scripture. Nothing is 
more reasonable, or more easily apprehended by our 
judgment, than the various essential doctrines and 
duties of religion. If we are commanded to repent, 
every one can see, that such is our mental and moral 
constitution, and such the nature of the religion sought 
for, that repentance is a palpable contradiction in ideas. 
And so of prayer, and so of obedience. A printed gospel 
is part of the Christian machinery. Well, is not its 
utility obvious ? It can have no other effect, than to 
advance religion. The gospel is commanded to be 
preached also. Well, here again it is apparent to all, 
that a gospel preached, in addition to its being merely 
written and printed, is of great practical utility to such 
creatures as we are. We have the visible organization 


30 


LETTERS ON 


of a church too. Now, how could Christianity prosper 
without this part of the great combination of means ? 
We have a living ministry also, of men amongst our¬ 
selves. And of what obvious utility is this ? 

And so you may look all over the system, and you 
will find nothing useless, nothing to pull back, but 
every thing to push forward the great wheels of salva¬ 
tion. But in this matter of a succession of persons 
ordained by bishops exclusively, in order to the very 
being of the system, what is it for ? What good end 
does it answer ? 

Has God framed a great comprehensive scheme of 
salvation for the whole race, and left it dependent upon 
mere incident, and circumstance, and human conduct ? 
If, as some allege, salvation is dependent on a succession 
of ordinations in a personal line of prelates, the whole 
seheme , heaven-born as it is, is left at the mercy of any 
one of a hundred different men, many of whom are 
known to have been among the most wicked men that 
ever lived! If either one of them had chose, he may 
have blown up the whole scheme, and here then was an 
end of the Christian religion , and of human redemption! 

Has God put it into the power of men to destroy 
Christianity? And further, has he, as I will show 
after awhile he must have done upon this hypothesis, 
put it into the power of infidels, drunkards, and 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


31 


debauchees, to thwart and disannul all that had pre¬ 
viously been done by the Saviour for the salvation of 
men ? Was a danger so imminently hazardous, a peril 
of such infinite and thrilling import as this let into the 
Christian system ? And why ? For what useful pur¬ 
pose ? Or did the Almighty put the scheme and the 
final success of it out of the reach of wicked men and 
devils ? 

If this doctrine of succession be true, then some very 
strange things are true. Upon this supposition, it is 
true that God, having so loved the world as to give his 
only Son to die for it, after bringing the entire resources 
of heaven into the enterprise of human redemption, 
and after Jesus Christ having suffered even death itself, 
and after all the arrangements having been made, and 
the establishment of a church and a ministry, after all 
this, the success of the whole scheme is left at the 
mercy, or at least the volition of a single individual 
man, a wicked man, a hater of God, an infidel, disbe¬ 
lieving in the truth of this very religion. This man — 
and there were many different ones of them—-had as 
much power over the question of human salvation as 
Jesus Christ himself had! He had but to say that 
religion was false, and it was false: for there, then, that 
moment, in him, Christianity ended! the Christian 
ministry that moment abated, and could never be 


32 


LETTERS ON 


revived; God himself has no power over it, for he has 
committed its very being, its living principle as well as 
its life, into the hands of “ the bishops ! 99 

And not only had these men power thus to cast 
Christianity into the gulf of annihilation, if their hatred 
of, and unbelief in it had prompted them so to do, but 
if carelessness, or ignorance of ecclesiastical forms, had 
by chance or inadvertence, unintentionally led one of 
them into an illegal ordination, then all had been lost! 

Has G-od left the great matter of human salvation 
suspended, in ten thousand places, upon a cob-web ? 
In some instances mere children, as we shall further 
see, were the medium of the transmission of this life¬ 
blood of the gospel, to all future generations of men. 
Now, the certainty that this child, or this drunken 
man, or this villain, who had purchased a bishopric 
with a thousand or ten thousand dollars — the certainty 
that in all these cases no irregularity occurred, is as 
important to the Christian as the certainty of the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ! If the Saviour had 
failed to rise from the grave, all would have been 
lost. And likewise, if, any where,'in all the links of 
this chain, a single instance of irregularity had occurred, 
all i3 lost! I can cheerfully trust Jesus Christ; but 
I would not trust the whole college of Apostles with 
my salvation; Arid now I am required, by your 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


33 


doctrine, to trust my salvation not only to these, but to 
fifty drunken debauched men; and in other instances, 
to the ecclesiastical legality and correctness of children ! 
My dear Bishop can you do this ? I assure you I 
cannot. No, sir, I cannot do this. 

And upon the hypothesis, that the “ unbroken 
transmission of ministerial authority,” in Bishops, is 
absolutely necessary to the existence of Christianity, 
■who can tell but the life-stream of Christ’s atone¬ 
ment has already been severed ! Who knows that 
Christianity exists ? You, sir, may give it as your 
opinion, or rather the opinion of Percival and Chapin, 
that the chain is unbroken ; and your list of ordaining 
prelates, one hundred and nineteen in number, may be 
correct; or Bishop Pearson’s list of one hundred and 
fifty in number, through the Roman pontiffs, may be 
correct; but here are three facts that are not ques¬ 
tioned, either by yourself or any other man of reading, 
and which are very important, and deserve well to be 
considered right here, it seems to me. 

First. It is admitted, on all hands, that this suc¬ 
cession of ordinations, if it has been preserved unbroken 
at all — and you tell us that “ the utmost pains have 
always been taken, in every branch of the Church, to 
keep the succession regular and pure ”—if, I say, we 
have it, “ regular and pure,” it has come to us through 


84 


LETTERS ON 


some of the most gloomy periods the world ever saw. 
They have come through a period embracing centuries, 
of what is emphatically styled “ the dark ages.” When 
literature, science, religion, yea, and civilization itself, 
was derided and repudiated by popes, emperors, and 
people! IIow much “ pains was taken” in those 
times, to procure the succession “ regular and 'pure” 
I know not, nor does history inform us. 

Secondly. It is known and admitted on all hands, 
that the regular succession, if we have it at all, has 
come to us in many instances, sometimes for ages at a 
time, through men of the greatest wickedness, and the 
worst of morals. I speak not now of the possibility 
of its being transmitted at all, through wicked men, but 
I speak of the probability of its coming at all, through 
scenes of blood, rapine, and misery. Often, very 
often , the prelacy w r as obtained by murder, war, blood¬ 
shed, and money! This is well known to all reading 
men. Now, how much u pains ivas taken,” by these 
persons, to preserve the succession “ regular and pure” 
I know not; but that it is certain, that it never, in one 
instance, failed, is, it seems to me, the wildness of a 
fervid imagination. 

Thirdly. It is admitted on all hands, that the most 
learned authors, who would be most likely to know, 
differ greatly in opinion, as to the fact of this unbroken 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


35 


transmission. Many of the ablest men and best scholars 
that Christianity has known, have recorded their belief , 
that the chain has been broken in many instances. And 
moreover it is to be remarked, that almost all the tes¬ 
timony we have in favor of the fact of the unbroken line, 
is from prelates themselves , whose very wealth and 
living were involved in the case. Those on the other 
side, by far the most numerous and most weighty, were 
of course disinterested. If none but disinterested wit¬ 
nesses were permitted to examine ancient authors and 
translate them, and give their opinions, then it might 
safely be said that there is nothing of respectable 
authority, on the side of the unbroken line. These, sir, 
are facts which belong to the history of the chain, broken 
or unbroken. 

Amidst all this uncertainty and confusion it has a 
thousand times been asked Oui bono ? Cui bono ? What 
good can come to the church from this question ? What 
good has accrued to the church in consequence of the 
assertion of the doctrine ? 

Do you reply to me that a valid ordination must have 
the approval of God as well as the action of the church, 
and that he approves those ordinations which are made 
in the succession, and not those which are made out of 
it ? Is this your ground ? Well then, please to answer 
me this question: Does God ever, can he, sanction the 


36 


LETTERS OX 


ordination of wicked men ? Why, sir, the very throne 
of God would totter and fall from its foundations of 
massive holiness, before this could be. God cannot look 
upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Men are 
either brought into the vineyard of the Lord to labor as 
ministers with the divine approval in every instance; 
or the ministry is left exclusively in the hands of men. 
There is no middle ground. 

The Romanists tell us that succession is in the line 
of popes, and thus, by continuous miracle, the pope is 
preserved from the possibility of error. Now, it seems 
to me this is the only reasonable ground you can assume 
for your ministry. Of what use can be a personal suc¬ 
cession, in diocesan bishops, unless God be continually 
in the line, to preserve it from error ? So I say it is still 
asked: What is it good for? Can you tell, sir ? 

No man, so far as my reading has extended, has ever 
attempted to explain or tell what good could accrue 
to the church or to religion, though the chain were 
whole, and the doctrine scriptural. The doctrine of 
the necessity of unbroken prelatical succession, seems 
to me to presuppose the absurdity that Christ set the 
machinery of religion agoing, provided in it the means 
of self-continuance, and then went off and left it! 
But, on the contrary, lie says, “ Lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world.” Then, does not 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


37 


the same means exist now for the perpetuation or con¬ 
tinuance of the ministry that existed eighteen hundred 
years ago for the creation of it ? Is not Christ here 
now, to put men into the ministerial office ? Do men 
enter that office by human or by divine means or 
authority ? Where then, was the necessity of giving 
the ministry the means of self-perpetuity at the begin¬ 
ning ? Are not all true ministers now “ called of Gcod , 
as was Aaron?” In what sense then are they humanly 
raised up, and humanly constituted ? I cannot, for the 
life of me, see the reason of the thing. 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER V. 


REFERENCE TO SCRIPTURE. 

Reverend and Dear Sir: —In my last letter I 
promised to make a brief excursion with you into the 
scriptures, in regard to this, as you call it, essential 
feature of Christianity. I also expressed some views 
as to the unreasonableness and inutility of the scheme. 
I did not undertake to say that, because we can see no 
good or reasonableness in it, that therefore it is certainly 
erroneous and bad. But I do say, that if it is an 
essential feature of Christianity, it is , and must be 
found clearly and plainly set forth in the Bible. Thi3 
I say with emphasis. 

According to High Church Episcopacy, succession, 
traced with certainty from the eleven Apostles, is the 
only proper and true basis of the Christian ministry. It 
is, therefore, an essential and fundamental feature in 
the Christian religion. And every Christian acknow¬ 
ledges that every thing fundamental in religion is found 
in the scriptures, plainly stated, and easily seen. And 
this is the more apparent, too, if we are not able to 
discover the clear utility of the thing, upon the face of it. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


39 


The entire argument in your sermon, supposing it to 
mean succession in bishops, might have been announced 
in these few words : “ I have the Scriptures for it.” 
Here, my dear sir, you are at the wall. The doctrine 
is not in the Bible. Then it is not true; for every 
thing essential to Christianity is in the Bible. You 
and I know very well, sir, that the succession writers 
always avoid the Bible. They never touch it until 
they are dragged into it. I was perfectly well satisfied, 
before I saw your sermon, that not a position was 
attempted to be proved by Scripture. I have seen 
these succession arguments before. And now, my dear 
Bishop, let us reverently look into the holy pages after 
this doctrine of succession. And if we find it not there, 
then it does not exist. I will quote those passages — and 
they are very few ■— where the subject is with any degree 
of plainness referred to, and which those who hold to 
the doctrine of succession as belonging exclusively to 
the line of bishops, seem to rely upon. 

The text mainly, or, I believe, exclusively relied 
upon by these writers, is the same which stands at the 
head of your sermon now under review, viz.: Matthew 
xxviii, 18, 19, 20: “ And Jesus came and spake to 
them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and 
in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 


40 


LETTERS ON 


Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo! 
I am with you alway, even unto'the end of the world.” 

This is commonly called the Apostolic commission; 
and it is contended, on the side of prelacy, that this 
language of the Saviour, uttered just before his ascen¬ 
sion, was spoken to the Apostles exclusively, none 
others being present; and, therefore, of course, the 
command was to them exclusively, and their direct 
legal successors, who are the bishops. If it had been 
spoken indiscriminately, they say, to the Apostles and 
other disciples, then the command and promise would 
not be thus restricted, but would be a common command 
to the disciples, and therefore common to the church. 
In proof of this, they refer us to the sixteenth verse 
of the same chapter, which says: “ Then the eleven 
disciples went aw’ay into Galilee, into a mountain where 
Jesus had appointed them.” The seventeenth verse says, 
that some doubted, &c., and then comes the eighteenth 
as above. So, they say, this language was spoken exclu¬ 
sively to the eleven; and who has authority to extend 
it beyond those to whom it -was delivered, and their 
direct successors, the properly authorized bishops of the 
Church ? 

Now, sir, I think it would be very easy to pick this 
argument to pieces, and distribute it by piece-meal : 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


41 


but I believe I prefer cutting it off at the knees, at 
once. If it proves any thing, it proves vastly too much. 
If, in the first place, it is thus restricted, why do you 
not so regard it ? Why do you consider the commission 
and promise as extending to deacons and elders (or 
presbyters ?) They have, upon this argument, no 
commission to preach, nor have they any promise that 
Christ will be with them, in the discharge of ministerial 
duty, to the end of the .world. 

You say this language was spoken to the Apostles 
and their successors. Elders were not present — they 
are not the successors of the Apostles, you say — what 
right, then, have they to preach, and claim the promised 
presence of the Saviour ? They are included, or they 
are not. If they are included, very well. Then where 
is your exclusive descent in diocesan bishops ? If they 
are not included, then by what authority do they 
preach ? Does “ Lo ! I am with you,” mean that he 
thereby invests bishops with authority to ordain elders 
and deacons, and that he will be with them exclusively, 
in such ordinations ? Why not suppose almost any 
thing else that is not mentioned, or in any wise stated 
in the text? Christ was then instituting a ministry, 
and to all the ministers then on earth he says, “ Lo ! I 
am with you ; ” that is, I suppose, with the ministry, 
in the discharge of their duty. 


42 


LETTERS ON 


All I ask of succession writers, and of you, sir, if you 
are one of them, is, to abide by your own arguments , 
and conform to your own doctrine. 

But, further, and conclusively: The command was 
given to the Apostles personally, no other persons 
being present, and, therefore, it is to none other. Then 
the sacrament of the Lord’s supper belongs exclusively 
to the Apostles as such, and their successors, the 
bishops. It was instituted in the presence of the 
Apostles only, and the command for its observance was 
given directly to them in person, and to none others. 
So this sacrament belongs not to the ministry and the 
church, but to the Apostles and their successors, the 
bishops! This is the argument, and you are heartily 
welcome to it, if you wish it. 

Several other instances of the same kind, might be 
cited, where promises and precepts were given by the 
Saviour, and are universally regarded as applying to 
the church generally, though they were uttered only in 
the presence of the Apostles. But perhaps the above 
is sufficient. 

The language of the text in question is, in its nature, 
designed for a ministry ; and, therefore , it must be so 
applied. This, Reverend Sir, is my notion ; and is the 
notion of most men. 

Again, it is impossible that anything could have been 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


43 


said by the Saviour or his Apostles, which would 
require us to believe that the functions of the Apostles, 
or of any others in those days were to descend, in late 
ages, to the church, through a line of bishops. The 
office of bishop, as is exists now, was not known in those 
times. In Apostolic times, the term bishop was used 
to mean the same as presbyter and elder, that is, to 
designate the same office. They were used in com¬ 
mon, synonymously and interchangeably. The name 
episcopos , signifying bishop or overseer, is used five 
times in the New Testament, Acts xx, 28 ; Phil, i, 1 ; 
1 Tim. iii, 1, 2; Titus i, 7, and 1 Peter ii, 25. 
In all these places it is used to denote an overseer or 
superintendent over the church or people, and never as 
implying oversight over ministers. 

It cannot of course be expected that you will try to 
take advantage of the mere different senses in which 
the term “ bishop ” is used now, and in the times of the 
Apostles. If I shall prove in these letters—and I 
warn you now, I am very certain to do it — that in the 
days of the Apostles, and for some time afterwards, the 
terms u bishop,” “ presbyter,” and “ elder,” meant the 
same thing and referred to the same persons, that the 
same ordination, and the same functions were common 
to them ; then it will follow that when you use the term 
bishop, as having any divine nr Apostolic command 


44 


LETTERS OK 


attached to it — that is, as the term was used in 
Apostolic days, I must understand you to mean the 
same as though you had said presbyter , or elder . 

If the meaning of the terms now , by common 
consent, to which of course there is no objection, is 
different from what it was then , then it follows, irresis¬ 
tibly, that this difference is a human, and not a divine 
arrangement. Custom has brought it about. So that 
if we hear Christ or Paul say 66 bishop,” we must not 
make him mean what the term imports now. This 
would be a fraud upon the Bible. And I tell you that 
I am going to prove that neither Christ nor Paul ever 
heard of a diocesan bishop; or a bishop with power 
above or incompatible with presbyters or elders. 

Presbyters only, in the New Testament, are expressly 
said to ordain. Timothy was ordained, not by the 
Apostles, or any one of them, but by the presbytery, 
1 Timothy iv, 14. High Church Episcopacy, you 
know, claims that bishops are an order in the ministry 
of divine creation, superior to and incompatible with 
the office of elder or presbyter. We contend that in 
Apostolic times and long afterwards, they were the same. 
Their ordination in those times zvas the same. See Acts 
xx, 17, 28; and Titus i, 5—7. The latter passage 
shows conclusively, that the name and the office, of 
elder and bishop, are the same, for they are both used 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


45 


as denoting the same thing, in the same sentence. St. 
Paul understood them as common and convertible terms, 
and so used them. 

Timothy, it is said, was a bishop; and I have no 
objection, to his being so considered, using the term bishop 
as it was then used. But if Timothy was a bishop, he 
wms not in the line of “ apostolical succession.” Who 
ordained Timothy ? An Apostle ? No sir. “ The pres¬ 
bytery .” Here it is. “ Neglect not the gift that is in 
thee, which was given to thee by prophecy, with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” 1 Timothy 
iii, 14. Ordain, you know, means merely to designate, 
or set apart for a particular work. 

The precise point under consideration now is, whether 
bishops, as the term and functions are understood at 
this day, are a grade or order of ministry, established 
by divine authority, incompatible with and superior 
to presbyters; having divine authority to govern the 
ministry as well as the church, and having exclusive 
right or authority to ordain other ministers, or whether 
the office is a mere ecclesiastical arrangement of expe¬ 
diency and advantage ; a bishop, in those churches which 
have them, being a mere presbyter, in order or grade, 
and designated or set apart as a superintendent or 
overseer of the church, for the mere end of wholesomeness 
and good government. 


46 


LETTERS ON 


The former of these propositions, is held by a few 
persons connected with the Protestant Episcopal Church 
of the United States, as before observed, and by a part 
of the members of the established Church of England, 
though not the doctrine of either of these churches. 
The latter is the doctrine of all the reformed churches of 
Europe and America, either tacitly or expressly. 

The Roman Catholic Church, if that establishment is 
to be placed in the category of churches, which I am 
pleased to learn you do not allow, occupies ground 
differing materially from both these. Papists hold that 
Apostolic authority, or the chain of succession, is in the 
line of popes alone. 

But let any man read the three closing verses of 
Matthew, and ask himself, what there is there that 
requires, absolutely, that in order to the existence of a 
church, there must be, in the ministry , an order of 
ruling ministers , with exclusive governing powers, and 
with the sole right to ordain , and in whom the life 
power of Christianity necessarily resides ? Common, 
reasonable intelligent men would as soon think of finding 
any thing else there as that. 

Another passage is sometimes referred to by bishop 
successionists, John xxvi, 21-23, “ Then said Jesus to 
them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent 
me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


47 


breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, 
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” 

Now, it is quite unimportant in this argument, what 
explication be given to this peculiar language ; the only 
question now is, to whom was this language spoken, and 
by whom is it, in all after time, to be received ? Was 
it spoken to an order of bishops, to be received and 
handed down by them in an exclusive line of diocesan 
bishops ? or was it spoken to the ministry of Christ in 
general ? The former is your position, if you belong to 
the school of bishop successionists, and the latter is 
what I contend for. 

The two preceding verses say that the language was 
spoken to “the disciples.” Suppose I were to assume 
that it was spoken to laymen, or to any other particular 
class of “ disciples.” That it was spoken to bishojis, is 
not only a mere assumption, it is far less. It is what 
could not be even assumed, for diocesan bishops did not 
then exist. 

And I make the same argument here as in the former 
case. The ministers were called eldeis, presbyters or 
bishops, indifferently and interchangeably. They all held 
the same office, they all performed the same duties, and 
all had the same ordination. Whatever else there may 
be in this text, it is certain there is nothing which teaches 


48 


LETTERS ON 


that some ministers, whether called bishops, or anything 
else, were to rule other ministers and the church, and 
were also to retain exclusive custody of the spiritual 
essence or descending stream of the church’s vitality, 
and were to have exclusive right to ordain other min¬ 
isters. No such thing as this is in the text, and 
therefore it fails too. 

Again, attempts have been made to press the cases 
of Timothy and Titus into the cause of High Church 
Episcopacy — see 1 Tim. i, 8; 2 Tim. i, 6, and Titus 
iv, 5. Without stopping to examine particularly into 
these texts now, as I shall probably have occasion to 
refer to them in future letters, I will just remark, that 
in them no intimation is made , in either place, that 
there existed, or ever would exist in the ministry , 
an order of ministers with exclusive governing and 
ordaining powers, in whose line of succession was to be 
found the true and sole “ ministerial authority.” If we 
find not this, it matters not to this argument what else 
we may find. 

I believe this is about the sum of u scripture 
authority,” to which we are generally referred by 
writers of the bishop succession school. I must be 
excused in saying that my reading does not inform me 
of much beyond this. Perhaps, however, your own 
reading is more extensive. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


49 


Before leaving this point, I ought to remark that 
attempts have been made to convert the angels of the 
seven churches of Asia , into- diocesan bishops, but I 
believe it is concluded that but little capital, for High 
Church episcopacy, is to be found in the Apocalypse; 
and if I understand the matter right, but little stress 
is now put upon those arguments. 

In truth, Reverend Sir, you and I understand very 
well that High Church, or Puseyite divines, generally, do 
not rely much upon the Bible for proof of their claims. 
They trust to round assertions and bold assumptions. 
They also gather some little encouragement from some 
controversies among the early Fathers, upon the subject 
of encroachments and high claims to power and 
jurisdiction, which were put forth in their days, by 
certain ministers, who had been placed by their 
respective churches in positions of presidency or gen¬ 
eral superintendence. These ministers claimed the 
prerogatives, by little and little, and from time to time, 
which modern bishops, of the diocesan school, now 
exercise. These ministers, from time to time, found 
friends among some of the early Fathers, while they 
were resisted by others. Along in those times, two, 
three, four, and five hundred years after Christ, there 
was considerable controversy on these questions. 

Certain leading ministers and holy martyrs who 

5 


5a 


LETTERS. 


wrote in regard to the affairs of the church, and whose 
writings have come down to us, are, you know, called 
Fathers, by way of honor and distinction. 

Too much can scarcely be said in favor of the 
piety and indomitable courage of these men; but at the 
same time it must be confessed, that some of them were 
of very little learning, and were greatly ignorant of 
ecclesiastical, as well as of theological affairs. While 
some others were men of great talent and learning. 
Among their writings, as I said, some scraps of comfort 
are to be gleaned in support of High Church episcopacy. 

But whether it is from the more learned or the more 
ignorant of them, that you gather these scraps of com¬ 
fort— and you must be aware that I could probably 
point out which it is,— and whatever they may have 
written, there is one thing they did not any of them 
write : they did not write the scriptures. And now, 
sir, in this argument, seeing the scriptures fail you, 
and the Fathers do you no good, where will you go ? 

Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 


R. A. 



LETTER VI. 

SUGGESTIVE OF SOME FURTHER DIFFICULTIES. 

Reverend Sir : — It really appears to me, my dear 
Bishop, that this notion of High Church episcopacy or 
exclusive succession in diocesan bishops, in its travel 
over the world, in society and among the churches, is 
destined to meet some difficulties of quite a serious 
nature, a few of which, if you will pardon me, I will 
very briefly allude to. 

For instance: If Timothy was “ Bishop ” of the 
Church at Ephesus (according to the modern signi¬ 
fication of the term bishop'), and Titus bishop of that at 
Crete, how comes it that St. Paul says, that he had the 
care of all the churches? Allow me to quote him: 
“ Besides those things that are without (having enum- 
merated many labors and privations he had to endure) 
that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the 
churches.” 2 Corinthians xi, 28. 

And in Acts xv, 36, it is said, “And some days after, 
Paul said unto Barnabas, let us go again and visit our 
brethren in every city where we have preached the 
word of the Lord, and see how they do.” And in 


52 


LETTERS ON 


verse 41 — “And he went through Syria and Cilicia 
confirming the churches.” Barnabas having gone to 
Cyprus. 

Now, here we have a double, or two-fold episcopacy 
over the same churches, if you call it episcopacy. 
According to the Bible it is a fact; — according to High 
Church episcopacy it is an impossibility. How is this ? 
The error lies between St. Paul and Barnabas, and our 
High Church friends. And I must contend, that, without 
deciding the point, the former is the oldest authority. 
Which is right ? 

Again: it is hard for me to understand the absolute 
necessity of our acting, in the ministry, now, in virtue 
of authority given to our predecessors eighteen hundred 
years ago, when Christ promised to be with his ministers 
himself, and not by proxy, in all future time. Can 
you, as the agent of Christ, confer ministerial authority 
any better than Christ himself? Really, mv dear sir, 
it seems to me, I had rather have a commission to 
preach the gospel from Christ than from you, or from 
any mere man. And again : is not that which God 
evidently sanctions now — that which he encourages 
and assists men in doing — that which he in fact does, 
by and through men, as instruments or subjects, as 
valid as though he had commanded men, eighteen 
hundred years ago, generally and indefinitely, that 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


53 


their “ successors ” should see to having done ? Or, in 
short, is not Christ’s command now , as good, received 
directly, as if it were given to a bishop eighteen hundred 
years ago, and communicated to us through a hundred 
and twenty or thirty intervening bishops, many of whom 
are known to have been among the most drunken, 
debauched, licentious, and murderous men that ever 
lived ? 

And again: Apostolical succession, I believe, means 
a succession coming down, in a chain of ordinations, 
from some one of the twelve Apostles. This, I believe, 
is what you mean by a succession from the Apostles. 
Let us understand this point distinctly. Who were 
these Apostles ? Let us see. Simon Peter, Andrew, 
James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, 
James the son of Alpheus, Lebbeus, also called Jude 
or Judas, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. 
These were the twelve chosen Apostles. Judas fell, 
and his place was filled by Matthias. 

Now, if I understand the doctrine of High Church 
episcopacy, it is, that authority to preach the gospel 
originated with Jesus Christ — that he invested these 
twelve Apostles with this authority — that he also 
authorized them to commission or authorize others, and 
they others, on, on, in a line of descending succession. 
And, though this is not important just at this point, 


54 


LETTERS ON 


this line of successive ordinations must be confined to 
diocesan bishops. 

It would not do, I suppose, that descent should 
be traceable back to any one of the hundreds of persons 
who, in those days, and in far later ages, were, by way 
of distinction or eminence, called Apostles. You know 
the meaning of the term “ Apostle,” it is literally a 
messenger, or one sent; and you know, that in those 
days almost every minister of great eminence, especially 
if he traveled about considerably, was called an Apostle. 
But what you mean in this sense, by the term Apostle , 
is the common restricted meaning above described. 
I do not wish to take advantage of the mere use of 
terms in different senses. I wish to use the term as 
you use it. I would not do otherwise if I could, nor 
could I if I wished; for your text and entire argument 
shows, that you speak only of the twelve, or rather the 
eleven, for Judas was then out, and his successor was 
not elected. This is certainly the meaning of all your 
writers. Dr. Hook says: u Those bishops who are 
successors of the first commissioned Apostles.” It is 
not possible that there can be an error or misunder¬ 
standing here. 

When you say “ Apostolic succession,” if I were to 
attempt to make you mean a succession traceable back 
to some other persons than one of the eleven, it would 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


55 


not only do palpable injustice to the whole scope of 
your argument, but would reduce you to the absurdity 
of claiming succession from some one of hundreds of 
other pious ministers, who lived in or near the days 
of the Saviour, or succeeding ages, who, by common 
consent, on account of their superior learning, or piety, 
or labors, were either generally or frequently called 
Apostles. I say I would not thus distort your argu¬ 
ment, for this is, of course, not your meaning. 

But then, Reverend Sir, if I am not greatly mistaken, 
in endeavoring to avoid one difficulty we fall into a 
greater- For, now, what are we to do in the cases of 
Paul and of Barnabas? They were ministers of the 
gospel, received as such by the Apostles, and did great 
service, it is said, in the ministry, but they were not in 
the succession. 

You may perhaps, sir, be startled at this statement, 
probably it never occurred to you before ; but they 
were certainly not in the succession. Not one of the 
eleven were even present at their ordination. Now, if 
I should prove this, pointedly and without dispute, from 
the scriptures, I must not be held responsible for any effect 
it may have upon your doctrine of succession, even 
though it should shatter it to atoms. It would, obviously, 
reduce you to the necessity of repudiating the ministry 
of St. Paul and St. Barnabas. 


56 


LETTERS ON 


Really, Reverend Sir, I almost dislike to place yon 
in so narrow a position as this ; or at least to do it at so 
early a period in the argument; but I hardly see how 
I can get along well with a general thread of these 
letters, without it. And, upon reflection, you must 
pardon me if I tell you, in this public manner, how Paul 
(or Saul, rather, as you know his name was, before he 
became a minister) and Barnabas were ordained. If 
you will turn to the first three verses of the thirteenth 
chapter of Acts, you will see that it was on this wise. — 
“ Now there were in the church that was at Antioch, 
certain prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas and Simeon 
that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and 
Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the 
Tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord 
and fasted, the Holy Ghost said: Separate me Barnabas 
and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 
And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their 
hands on them, they sent them away.” 

This, Reverend Sir, was the occasion of the ordina¬ 
tion of these two celebrated ministers of Jesus Christ. 
It was pretty much like the ordination of Timothy; 
you know he was ordained by elders and not by any of 
the Apostles, and was, therefore, not in the succession 
either. Now, Sir, what is to be done in the case of 
Paul and Barnabas ? The persons present, and who 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


57 


ministered in their ordination are all named specifically; 
not one of the chosen eleven were there, but the persons 
who performed the ordination were called by the general 
name of “ prophets and teachers.” They certainly 
understood this thing of “ ministerial authority ” differ¬ 
ently from what you do. 

I know that some have attempted to deny that this 
was an act of ordination in the case of Paul, because 
he had preached before. He undoubtedly preached 
before he was ordained. He commenced preaching 
immediately after his conversion. But he preached as 
a layman, so far as the Church was concerned ; see 
Acts ix, 27. How long he preached as a layman, we 
are not distinctly informed. One of two things, however, 
is certain: He either preached as a layman until the 
time referred to above, (Acts xv, 1 to 3,) when he was 
about to leave the place and persons where he was 
known, or he was ordained by Ananias ; see Acts ix, 
11 to 18. The ablest divines tell us that their opinion 
is, that the place above recited in the fifteenth of Acts, 
was the instance of Paul’s public ordination. But you 
have a greater difficulty than this to get over in the 
case of Paul. It is certain he was not one of those 
eleven who received the Apostolic commission, therefore 
you cannot date from him . You must repudiate his min¬ 
istry or get through him to the first link of your chain. 


58 


LETTERS ON 


You are here compelled, you see, whether you will or 
not, either to abandon the doctrine of bishop succession, 
or repudiate the ministry of Paul, Barnabas, and 
Timothy. It will avail you nothing to say that Paul 
was called directly of God to preach the gospel. So is 
every true minister. But, as in all other cases, it was 
deemed expedient and proper, that his divine call 
should be publicly recognized and adopted by the 
church, and so, after he was called, as in other cases, 
he was ordained. And how, in the cases of Barnabas 
and Timothy ? 

The question is, can you go out of the college of the 
twelve chosen Apostles , to find an authoritative root 
for the ministry ? If you are allowed to go out at all, 
how far may you not go ? Or how far may I not go ? 
Or, what rule restricts you ? If the proper authoritative 
root of the ministry, according to your argument, is not 
found in the eleven , where is it found ? What are 
the limits ? If you do not claim descent from the eleven, 
from whom do you claim descent ? To say, that you 
claim descent from Apostles , is to say nothing definite, 
unless you either confine your meaning to the chosen 
college, or let it be extended, so as to include others 
who were called Apostles. If you were to avow the 
latter, you would meet instantaneous destruction ; for 
then your descent comes from no particular persons. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


59 


If the former, what do you do with Paul, Barnabas and 
Timothy ? 

I am taking your own view of the case of these 
persons. You say: “ Was it not his own mouth that 
delivered the great commission, ‘ Go ye, and disciple all 
nations ? Was it not his own power that he bestowed 
upon his few and faint hearted Apostles ? And was it 
not his own grace that he imparted to the ordinances 
they were commanded to administer ? What authority 
had the eleven to establish and govern the church 
beyond this which they had received from him ? And 
who would venture to usurp their authority ? ” 

Now, Paul was not of this number. He was a sinner, 
and persecutor of Christians, when these transactions 
took place. He therefore, according to your argument, 
is an usurper, unless he can show that he was ordained by 
one of these “ eleven.” And this, no man will attempt. 

Here is a proposition, sir, that no man can answer. 
Some of your lists trace back your succession to St. 
Paul, that is, you trace it back to his ordainers, who 
were, Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen ; for you 
must trace back to the first ordainers. If you claim 
that Paul had originally authority to ordain, you meet 
two difficulties. You must first answer me, who gave 
him that authority ? And secondly, you repudiate your¬ 
self, for your argument is, succession from the eleven 


60 


LETTERS ON 


Apostles. St. Paul is awfully in the way here. You 

cannot dispose of him. 

And again, your doctrine implies, and your writers 
strenuously contend, that bishops are, by divine right , 
the only and proper governors of the church, of the 
ministry, and the people. But this was not so in 
Apostolic times. Then the church was governed by the 
people , in common with ministers. Who governed the 
church in the important matter of selecting the successor 
of Judas ? Read from the 12th verse to the end of the 
first chapter of Acts, and you will learn all about it. 
Read again, Acts vi, 1 to 6, and see who governed the 
church in another very important matter. And again, 
read Acts xv, 1 to 4, and you will see the church 
governed by “ the church,” and by “ the Apostles and 
elders.” See also, Acts xxi, 22. 

Mosheim says on this point: 

“ In those early times, every Christian church Con¬ 
sisted of the people , their leaders , and the ministers or 
deacons , and these, indeed, belong essentially to every 
religious society. The people were undoubtedly the 
first in authority, for the Apostles showed by their own 
example, that nothing was carried on or determined 
without the consent of the assembly ; and such a method 
of proceeding was both prudent and necessary in these 
critical times.” 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


61 


Government by bishops — or in fact by ministry of 
any kind —jure divino , is a thing which was unknown 
in apostolic times. Bishops have themselves usurped 
this “ authority,” and a few persons have conceded it 
to them. I will explain to you, after a little while, or 
rather remind you, how this came about. 

There is also a difficulty, in my mind — pardon me 
for desiring an explanation — as to how a bishop, once 
in the possession of this essence of the church’s vitality, 
can be deprived of it. I know the Onderdonk doctrine 
is adverse to this, and asserts that he never can be 
deprived of this singular quality or property. Well, 
take it either way, there seems to be a difficulty. 

The New York Onderdonk, for instance, is proved, 
by the judicial records of your church, to be a licentious 
debauchee. Your solemn decision, in his case, is, that 
he will do very well for a brothel, but not so well for 
the pulpit. Similar decisions, it is painful to state, 
have occasionally been made by other churches, when, 
by misfortune and mishap, they have discovered a 
wicked man in the ministry. But the peculiarity in 
your case is this : that while other churches unhesitat¬ 
ingly hurl the hypocrite over its battlements, as the 
Bible directs, and regard him henceforth as a heathen 
man and a publican, your strange notion of succession 
compels you to retain the lecherous or the dishonest 


62 


LETTERS ON 


delinquent, as the case may be, still in your bosom! !! 
This New York man, for instance, is still a member 
of your church — his guilt is acknowledged by all, but 
the High Church party out-voted, and Tetained him. 
He is, according to the High Church doctrine, a bishop, 
in the same sense that any worthy and pious man is a 
bishop. He has the same power to ordain that you 
have, and his salary is perhaps as great as your own — 
I believe about four times as g eat, if I recollect right. 
I know the church has requested him not to exercise 
his official duties or functions; but his divine right to 
ordain is the same which you claim. And the decision 
of your church is, that the office of bishop inheres in 
him because he was once invested with it. This, it 
must be admitted, is bringing the pulpit and brothel 
pretty close together. I must be careful how I comment. 

Well, suppose you take the other horn of the 
dilemma, and say, as your church has often decided, 
before the High Church power became quite so great as 
it is now — that a bishop may be deposed. Here, a 
man, by the mere fact of ordination, became invested 
with the life-power of the church. He became a link 
in the chain which connects Christ with Christianity. 
He is supposed to entertain heretical opinions, and a 
court or council of bishops decide, perhaps by a 
majority of one vote, against him, and he is deposed—- 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 63 

or in other words, Christ is separated from the church, 
and the paan is divested of this divine power to perpet¬ 
uate the church. And, as has frequently been the 
case — the next year, or soon after, his friends, by 
accident perhaps, or by the absence of a member of the 
bishop’s court, obtain a majority of votes, and he is 
re-invested with the church’s vital principle. 

This, it really seems to me, is bandying about the 
high prerogatives of God in a most singular way. For 
my part, I cannot for the life of me see how, when 
God once invests a man, as an individual, personally 
with the church’s vital principle, any power but that of 
God himself can divest him of it. And yet, to suppose 
this, drives us into the other absurdity of laying U3 
liable to retain a villain in the church as one of its 
pillars, not indeed in any figurative sense, but really, 
literally, and truly. Some persons may be able to 
understand this, but I cannot. 

And again, there is a historical difficulty in the way, 
of no small moment. The Council of Nice, held about 
the year, A. D., 325, was called an ecumenical Council, 
or Council intended to embrace all the bishops in the 
world. They were all summoned. You know the 
world, or at least the Christian world, -was not as large 
then as it is now. I am aware that the number of 
bishops in attendance at this Council is a little uncertain. 


64 


LETTERS OX 


I have a book before me, called “ The Churchman 
Armed,” which embraces “ a compendious ecclesiastical 
history, from the earliest period to the present time, by 
the Rev. William Palmer, M. A.,” of Oxford, &c. This 
authority is, of course, as good as the best with you, 
for it is the book, of all others, with which you “ arm ” 
your “ churchmen ” against such arguments as I am now 
writing. In this book, at page 35, we have the precise 
number of bishops in attendance at the Council of Nice, 
in 325. They were “ three hundred and eighteen holy 
bishops.” How many of other kinds is not stated. 

The same writer tells us that in the year 359, 
twenty-four years afterward, the same question, or 
nearly the same, had again arisen between the eastern 
and western churches, that is, between the churches at 
Rome and Constantinople, and another council was 
called by the emperor of Ariminum, in Italy, at which 
there were four hundred bishops of the western church. 
How many eastern bishops were absent is not stated. 
Again, in the year 451 there was another council — 
same author, page 44 — called at Chalcedon, “ consist¬ 
ing of six hundred and thirty bishops.” 

Now, these historical statements are, in truth, correct, 
except that the precise number of bishops in attendance 
is not certainly known. Though all historions agree 
that your author is about correct. Let us see, in the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


'66 

year 325 there were three hundred and eighteen 
bishops — in 359, there were four hundred bishops of 
the western church, and in 451, we have six hundred 
and thirty bishops. 

Now, the great difficulty with me is — where did all 
these bishops come from? Since the year 451, I 
suppose the church has increased considerably — and 
yet — are there six hundred bishops in the world now ? 
Were there ever six hundred ? were there ever the half 
of that number ? Reflect a moment. How many 
bishops are there in America ? And how many in 
Europe ? And then there are a few others in foreign 
countries. In England you have about twenty-seven 
bishops and archbishops; in this country, perhaps 
twenty-five, and in other countries perhaps ten or 
twelve. But we never count bishops by the hundred. 
I doubt if there are over a hundred bishops, out of 
Romanism, in the world at this time. 

What! six hundred and thirty bishops! and that in 
the infancy of the church, in the year 45T. 

You have in your church in the United States, at 
this time, it is said, 1650 ministers. I do not recollect, 
at this moment, the number of your bishops; say there 
are twenty, that will give eighty-two ministers to each 
bishop. Then, at this ratio, in the year 451, with 630 
bishops, they had 51,660 ministers. Or if you calculate 
6 


66 


LETTERS. 


the ratio according to that of the Methodist Church in 
this country, you would give them at that early period 
over four hundred thousand ministers , and about sixty 
millions of members ! 

The Council of Trent, which was assembled for the 
purpose of checking the progress of the Reformation, 
closed its session in 1563, and was, perhaps, the most 
important general council ever held in the world. The 
whole church was greatly interested in it. Everything 
was running after the Reformation, and all looked to 
this Council to preserve the church. At this Council, 
only “ about forty or fifty bishops attended, according 
to the best authorities. There were, however, no doubt, 
more than this number then in the world. 

How do you solve this difficulty? Now, I can 
explain it all, very easy; but, Reverend Sir, how do 
you account for the existence of over six hundred 
bishops at that early period of the church’s history. I 
hesitate not to say you cannot. 

The truth is, that at that time all elders or presbyters 
were called bishops. But this annihilates your diocesan 
episcopacy. 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER VII. 


f - • . 

THE LIST OF BISHOPS. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — Although you do not 
say in your sermon, that “ ministerial authority ” is 
based upon a successiou of ordinations coming down 
from the Apostles, in a line of diocesan bishops, yet I 
infer that this is your doctrine, not only from common 
fame, but from the appendix to your pamphlet. Here 
you give us a list of bishops commencing with St. John, 
and coming down to Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, 
which I see you copy from a small tract written by Dr. 
Henshaw of Baltimore. You do not give us the dates 
of any of the bishops up to the year 589. I suppose in 
those early times you did not know the dates exactly. 
The names you give, are all in regular, plain, printed 
order, so that, upon this paper, it is quite easy for any 
one to trace up the list from Bishop White to St. John. 

Allow me to make one or two preliminary obser¬ 
vations in regard to these lists of diocesan bishops, that 
we may fully understand each other as we proceed in a 
very brief examination of them, which I respectfully 
propose. 


68 


LETTERS ON 


Before you can, with any degree of reasonableness, 
ask me to believe, that the life-stream or vital principle 
of Christianity is contained in this unbroken connection 
of ordinations by diocesan bishops, you must prove 
to me absolutely, that the unbroken chain of ordinations 
really and truly exists. This is obvious to every one. 
If we ask a sinner to believe, and put his trust in 
Christ, we must prove to him that Christ did truly live 
and die. 

Surely it will not be sufficient for us to show that 
the historical probabilities are in favor of Christ’s 
life and death. We must prove it, absolutely, beyond 
the doubt of reasonable men. And in like manner, if 
I am to believe and put my religious trust in the 
unbroken entireness of this succession of ordinations, 
you must prove to me that the chain, perfect and entire, 
does really exist. I do not, of course, mean that th '13 
proof is to be made satisfactory to infidels and cavilers; 
but I mean that it must satisfy all fair , intelligent , 
religious men . Yes, it must do more than this — it 
must satisfy all fair, intelligent, religiously disposed 
men, who honestly inquire after truth. If your proof 
does not come fully up to this mark, you place before a 
man a condition of salvation which is impracticable . 
And this you know cannot be. 

And this plain and reasonable view of the matter, I 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 6§ 

am glad to see you take yourself. You say, as before 
quoted : 

“ Let it suffice to say, and I say it in the fear of 
God, that no important fact of ancient or modern 
history, is so capable of proof —-1 had almost said of 
demonstration — as that of the unbroken transmission 
of ministerial authority from the Apostles’ days to our 
own.” 

I am truly glad, sir, to see you take so reasonable a 
view of this important question. Again, you say: 

“ And the pages of the early history of the church 
show, beyond dispute, that the greatest care was always 
taken to transmit, through the order of bishops, which 
had in all needful authority, succeeded that of Apostles, 
that identical commission which was given in the words 
of our text.” 

This is precisely the ground you ought to occupy. 
Nothing an inch below it would, of course, be reasonable 
or proper. “ No important fact of ancient or modern 
history is so capable of proof.” The pages of early 
histories show it, u beyond dispute.” The man that 
would doubt it then, would disbelieve that Washington 
lived, that we conquered independence from Great 
Britain, or that Luther was instrumental in the reforma¬ 
tion of the church, in the sixteenth century. 

Just so. Then, if I should have the temerity to doubt 


70 


LETTERS OX 


the perfect entireness of this unbroken chain, I have 
not, of course, to make it appear that the perfect chain 
does not exist, or even that it does not probably exist; 
I have only to show that some reasonable doubt exists, 
as to its perfect entireness, and I shall have overthrown 
your argument. This, then, is the proposition. You 
assent to this, of course. Well, sir, I accept the 
challenge ; — one of us shall fail shortly. The terms 
are understood, and the issue is at hand. But we will 
take it moderately. I never like to be in a hurry. 

I happen at this moment to have a tract before me, 
published by “ the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, 1 ” 
of New York ; entitled: “ Reasons, why I am a 
Churchman,” and numbered 190, in which we have 
another list of bishops, intended to be much more 
satisfactory than yours. This tract informs us that 
“ Eusebius, the early historian of the church, brings 
down the Apostolic succession to the year after Christ 
305 or to within twenty years of the Council of Nice,” 
&c. And that “ it is not within the limits of moral 
possibility that that succession thus carefully guarded 
could have been broken.” Here we have the list, 
perfect. Linus was ordained, or consecrated, if you 
prefer it, in A. D. 67, Anacletus in 79, Clement in 91, 
and so on, until Bishop White comes in as the hundred 
and fiftieth Bishop. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


71 


This list is printed just as plain as yours; it is of the 
same High Church authority, and is much more satis¬ 
factory, for the dates are all perfect, and we are assured, 
that there is not a letter, figure or comma amiss, in the 
whole table. I wonder you did not copy from this tract. 

I have also another tract before me, published by the 
same High Church authority, entitled: “ A candid 
examination of the Episcopal Church,” and numbered 
90, in which we have yet another list of bishops. In 
regard to this list, it is said : u The succession of bishops 
of the Roman Church, especial]^ of the earliest of their 
number, is full of intricacy. Little attention was paid 
to the minutiae of dates and successions by the earlier 
Christian historians, and the consequence is, the moderns 
are unable accurately to determine these particulars.” 

They appear not to have heard of “ Eusebius, the 
early historian of the church,” who had given every 
particular with such exactness. This list commences 
at A. D., 100 with Everatus, in 108 he has Alexander, 
and in 117 Xyturs, or Sixtus, &c. It is further said 
that — 

“It is agreed by all, that the Apostles Peter and 
Paul, founded the Roman Episcopate. After their 
martyrdom, it is impossible to determine the dates of the 
bishops before the close of the first century. It would 
appear, however, that the Jewish and Gentile converts 


n 


LETTERS ON 


were, for a time, under the government of district 
bishops. Linus, succeeded by Cletus or Anacletus, 
having the government of the Jewish Christians, while 
Clement bore the episcopal rule over the Gentile 
converts. The latter probably survived the second 
or third of his contemporary bishops (for it is uncertain 
whether the names of Cletus and Anacletus designate 
the same individual or consecutive bishops).” 

Now, this is good High Church succession authority. 
It is copied from your publishing establishment; and 
must be confessed to Ultimate some uncertainty about 
this matter. Certainly they are not as sanguine as 
you, when you say that “ no important fact of ancient 
or modern history is so capable of proof as this suc¬ 
cession. I leave these difficulties to be reconciled by 
yourselves. But I task you with impossibility. 

I have no doubt but the one of these lists is as reliable 
as the other. The printing is quite as plain, and the 
succession or catalogue of names is equally perfect. 

Now, sir, is not this “ candid examination” as good 
authority as your pamphlet? I do not pretend for 
a moment that it is. I only say it is issued by 
authority of your publishing establishment at New 
York, and carries with it the imprint of your church. 
It carries us back to within a hundred years of the 
Apostles, and tells us that beyond that point all is guess- 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 7 . 


73 


work. They can go no further. Now, I only ask you 
whether this does or does not throw some shadow of 
doubt over the absolute certainty of your statement ? 

I was reading Mosheim’s history not long since, and 
you know Dr. Mosheim stands at the head of the most 
learned and faithful ecclesiastical historians we have. 
In his chronological tables at the close of his work, he 
says: 

“ The succession of the bishops of Rome is a matter 
full of intrieaey and obscurity. The dates of the 
deaths of the Roman pontiffs, are not the same in the 
accounts of chronologers. Peteau, Fleury, Pearson, 
Mancell, Pfaff, Brown, Langlet, and others differ fre¬ 
quently in this respect, and their differences sometimes 
are considerable.” Again, he says: “ It is impossible 
to reconcile these historians, and difficult often to decide 
which calculates the best,” Which calculates the best! 
Did you ever hear such an expression ? What means 
it ? Here one of the most distinguished and celebrated 
historians of the church that ever wrote, uninspired, in 
human language, testifies, that after the most laborious 
and careful examination he can make into the oriental 
records about this succession, it is all uncertainty, 
and instead of historical facts , certain and definite, 
written down, as you tell us, with unmistakable cer¬ 
tainty, he finds it all mere calculation! One ancient 
7 


74 


LETTERS ON 


author calculates one way, and another calculates 
another; nay, and he cannot tell “ which calculates the 
best l” 

Again, he goes on to mention various “ contests,” 
“ schisms,” and other difficulties which he says occurred 
all along the line, to interrupt it in numberless places, 
and for hundreds of years. 

Now, will you pardon me again, if I pause a moment, 
long enough to ask you if these things do not create 
some doubt as to the certainty of your history ? 

Bishop Hoadley, of the Church of England, you may 
remember, in his “ Perspective,” speaking of this 
succession remarks as follows : 

u The following argument will justify you, which, 
therefore, ought to be frequently in the thoughts of all 
who have any value for the most important points. 
God is just, and equal, and good; and as sure as he is, 
he cannot put the salvation and happiness of any man 
upon what he himself has put it out of the power of 
any man on earth to be entirely satisfied in. It hath 
not pleased) God , in his Providence , to keep up any 
proof of the least probability , or moral possibility , of a 
regular , uninterrupted succession .” 

Now, sir, it must be admitted, I think, that I have 
quoted some authority of considerable weight. In your 
Nitration, it must be as good as the best. You, I am 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


75 


sure, could ask no better authority than the great and good 
bishop Hoadley. Have I as yet created a doubt as to 
the certainty of your history ? You will recollect, you 
did not quote any authority to support your argument. 
Not that I would intimate that your recollection or 
deductions need endorsement, but you know that the 
wisest men will differ — any man may be questioned, 
and then the usual mode is, to bring in the proof from 
either side. But if the doubt which I have promised 
to throw over your history is not yet seen, I think it 
quite likely it will appear in the following letter. 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, respectfully. 


R. A. 


LETTER Y 111. 




THE FACT OF SUCCESSION FURTHER CONSIDERED. 








Reverend and Dear Sir : — In my last letter it 
was agreed, that the nature of this question we are 
discussing rendered it obviously incumbent on yourself 
to support your affirmation of the unbroken historical 
succession of ordinations in a line of diocesan bishops, 
from the Apostles to the present time, by clear and 
indubitable proofs. For a reasonable doubt of this 
historical fact, is clearly fatal to the scheme. In 
submitting a few further considerations, with the view 
of making this doubt appear, I beg leave to remind you 
of what I stated in a former letter, as to the number 
of bishops which the church had about the fourth and 
fifth centuries. 

I showed, that at that time there were six hundred 
and thirty ministers who were called “ bishops,” 
assembled at one time and place; when, if the church 
was governed by diocesan bishops, as you say it ever 
was, and ought to be now, there could not have been 
over ten or twenty, or thereabouts. It is certain, that 


Sjjf 0 , uri m - 

fef ?? *-.r v * * 

ckA' rj. A.t. 





APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


77 


six hundred diocesan bishops, or the half of that number, 
never did exist on earth at one time. 

This consideration, I beg leave to remind you, de¬ 
prives you even of the opportunity of making such 
an argument as you propose. For how, or at what 
point will you begin to prove a succession of ordinations 
in a line of diocesan bishops, when for the first three or 
four centuries historians called all ordained ministers 
bishops ? 

I leave this matter here for you to dispose of as you 
come along, and proceed to cite some further authority 
in support of my proposition, that your history of the 
succession is doubtful . 

Chillingworth is another authority that comes from a 
high source in your church, and I am sure you will 
regard him as good as the best. He, you know, dis¬ 
believed utterly, in this successive scheme. And you 
may, no doubt, recollect that after looking at the ques¬ 
tion in various points of light, and summing it up, he 
came to the following conclusion: 

« That of ten thousand probably, no one should be 
false ; that of ten thousand requisites, whereof any one 
may fail, not one should be wanting; this to me is 
extremely improbable, and even cousin-german to im¬ 
possible. So that the assurance hereof, of an uninter¬ 
rupted succession, is like a machine composed of an 





78 


LETTERS ON 


innumerable multitude of pieces, of which it is strangely 
unlikely but some will be out of order.” 

And yet you tell us that it is more easily proved than 
any other fact of ancient or modern history ! Reverend 
Sir, are you not too sanguine ? 

Why, sir, Hooker, one of the first men of the Church 
of England, and a High Churchman of great authority, 
in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” vol. 1, page 37, says, that 
“ evidence from scripture, on the subject of episcopacy, 
is doubtful.” Here, sir, is a High Churchman, as high 
as the highest, asserting, in terms, the very thing that I 
have undertaken to make appear. 

Bishop White, the founder of your church in America, 
was himself of the opinion that ordination by a bishop 
was not necessary to create or to perpetuate an epis¬ 
copacy ; and he wrote a book, urging the propriety of 
consecrating a bishop and organizing a church in this 
country by the assistance of Presbyters alone, without 
waiting the tardiness of an appointment by the King. 
He also stated in the same book, that: 

“ In the early ages of the church, it was customary 
to debate and determine in a general concourse of all 
Christians in the same city, among whom the bishop was 
no more than president .” And further, that, 4 4 to 
relinquish the worship of God, and the instruction 
and reformation of the people from a scrupulous ad- 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


T9 


herence to episcopacy, is sacrificing tire substance for 
the ceremonyJ’ 

Although the particular point now under consideration 
is very, nay, it is vitally important, yet I must haste to 
some ether matters which I wish to bring before your 
notice. So, with your permission I will close this letter, 
by introducing a matter that will settle this question to 
your entire satisfaction, I doubt not. 

You and I are well acquainted with the character of 
Archbishop Whately. But lest all who see these pages 
may not know him as well as we do, we will just 
let them be informed, that he is the present Archbishop 
of Dublin, and Primate of Ireland. As a learned man, 
in matters pertaining to his profession, he is, in the 
estimation of scholars and men of reading, unrivaled, or 
at least unsurpassed by any man living. In your church 
Archbishop Whately is unquestionably the first authority, 
that can be cited. Perhaps a proper or dignified respect 
for yourself ought to forbid my making that expression; 
seeing, I am addressing it to one who is himself a bishop, 
also, of the Protestant Episcopal Church. I ask pardon, 
sir, and would willingly draw my pen across the remark, 
if I thought it would work any disparagement in the 
distinguished personage I am now addressing. And 
on the oilier hand, modesty forbids the expression of 
any sentiments I may myself entertain as to tlio 


80 


LETTERS ON 


relative merits of these distinguished divines. The 
trite saying is apropos here, that, “ present company is 
always excepted.” 

Still, Archbishop Whately is distinguished as a man 
of consummate learning and sterling piety, in your 
church. In his “ Kingdom of Christ,” Essay II, section 
20, we read as follows : — 

“ It has been maintained, that the only way of 
affording complete satisfaction and repose to the scru¬ 
pulous, and of repressing schism, is to uphold, under 
the title of church principles, the doctrine, that no one 
is a member of Christ’s Church, an heir of the cove¬ 
nanted gospel promises, who is not under a ministry 
ordained by bishops descended in an unbroken chain 
from the Apostles. Now, what is the degree of 
satisfactory assurance that is thus afforded to the 
scrupulous consciences of any member of an Episcopal 
church ? If a man consider it as highly probable , that 
the particular minister at whose hands he received the 
sacred ordinances, is really thus Apostatically descended, 
this is the very utmost point to which he can, with any 
semblance of reason, attain. And the more he reflects 
and inquires , the more cause for hesitation he will find. 
There is not a minister in all Christendom, who 

IS ABLE TO TRACE UP, WITH ANY APPROACH TO CER¬ 
TAINTY, HIS OWN SPIRITUAL PEDIGREE. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


81 


“ The sacramental virtue — for such it is that is 
implied, whether the term be used or not, in the 
principle I have been speaking of, that is dependent on 
the imposition of hands, with a due observance of Apos¬ 
tolical usages, by a bishop himself duly consecrated, after 
having been, in like manner, baptized into the church, 
and ordained deacon and priest — this sacramental 
virtue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on 
the above principles, be utterly nullified ever after, in 
respect of all the links that hang on that one. 

“Tor if a bishop has not been duly consecrated, or 
had not been previously rightly ordained, his ordina¬ 
tions are null; and so are the ministrations of those 
ordained by him; and their ordination to others (sup¬ 
posing any of the persons ordained by him to attain to 
the Episcopal office,) and so on, without end. The 
poisonous taint of informality, if once crept in unde¬ 
tected, will spread the infection of nullity to an indefinite 
and irremediable extent. 

“ And who can undertake to pronounce, that during 
that long period usually designated as the dark ages , 
no such taint ever was introduced? Irregularities 
could not have been wholly excluded, without a perpetual 
miracle; and that no such miraculous interference 
existed, we have even historical proof. Amidst the 
numerous corruptions of doctrine and of practice, and 


/ 


82 


LETTERS OS 


gross superstitions, that crept in during those ages, we 
find recorded descriptions, not only of the profoundest 
ignorance and profligacy of life, of many of the clergy, 
but also of the greatest irregularities in respect of 
discipline and form. We read of bishops consecrated 
when mere children; of men officiating who barely 
knew their letters; of prelates expelled, and others 
put in their places, by violence ; of illiterate and profli¬ 
gate laymen, and habitual drunkards, admitted to holy 
orders ; and, in short, of the prevalence of every kind 
of disorder, and reckless disregard of the decency which 
the Apostle enjoins. It is inconceivable that any one , 
even moderately acquainted with history , can feel a 
certainty, or any approach to certainty , amidst all this 
confusion and corruption, that every requisite form was 
in every instance strictly adhered to, by men, many of 
them openly profane, secular, and unrestrained, by public 
opinion, through the gross ignorance of the population 
among which they lived ; and that no one, under such 
circumstances, not duly consecrated or ordained, was 
admitted to sacred offices. 

“ Now let any one proceed on the hypothesis, that 
there are, suppose, but a hundred links connecting any 
particular minister with the Apostles; and let him even 
suppose, that not above half of this number pass through 
ewch periods as admit of any possible irregularity, and 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


88 


then, placing at the lowest estimate the probability of 
defectiveness, in respect of each of the remaining fifty, 
taken separately, let him consider what amount of 
probability will result from the multiplying of the whole 
together. Supposing it to be one hundred to one, in 
each separate case, in favor of the legitimacy and 
regularity of the transmission, and the links to amount 
to fifty, (or any other number,) the 'probability of the 
unbroken continuity of the whole chain must be com¬ 
puted as ninety-nine one-hundredths of ninety-nine 
one-hundredths , of ninety-nine one-hundredths , etc., to 
the end of the whole fifty . 

“ The ultimate consequences must be, that any one 
who sincerely believes that his right to the benefits of 
the gospel covenants depends on his own minister’s 
claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of ordination, 
and this again, as above described, must be involved in 
proportion as he reads and inquires , and reflects and 
reasons on the subject , in the most distressing doubt 

AND PERPLEXITY.’’ 

I sympathize with your argument. But I beg you 
to remember that I did not do this. Your own learned 
and venerable Archbishop Whately, the distinguished 
Primate of Ireland, is the man you must charge with 
all this, and not me, I beg of you. 

If your argument is annihilated, or if it should be 


84 


LETTERS. 


only demolished, so that a few fragments only are seen, 
or whatever injury it might have sustained, you will, I 
know, do me the justice to admit that I have not done 
it. It was the Bible, and a few distinguished ministers 
of your own church, almost entirely. 

I certainly feel my reluctance to pursue this par¬ 
ticular branch of the subject any further, and really I 
had intended to dismiss it, and call your attention to 
another; but there is a little matter or two I have 
omitted, and if you have no objection I will allude 
to them in my next letter. 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER IX. 


STILL WHETHER THERE IS A DOUBT AS TO THE FACT OF SUCCESSION. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — You will not fail to 
remember that the particular point under discussion 
just now, is this: you affirm not only the historical 
fact of prelatical succession, but “ that no important 
fact of ancient or modern history is so capable of 
proof” as it is. That “the pages of the early history 
of the church show, beyond dispute , that the greatest 
care was always taken to transmit ” it faithfully down ; 
and that ail this is a “ truth that was never questioned 
during the first fifteen hundred years of the church’s 
history.” And I undertake to show that some historical 
facts are as easily demonstrated or proved as this — that 
it was, during fifteen hundred years after the Christian 
era, questioned, and that the pages of early history do 
not show, quite beyond dispute , that the greatest care 
was always taken to preserve it. 

It is not at all necessary now to advert to the con¬ 
dition in which my last letter left your argument. 
The better way is to look forward, and never mind the 


86 


LETTERS ON 


past. You have some consolation yet, for Dr. Hook 
says, “ There is no bishop , or priest , or deacon amongst 
us , who cannot , if he please, trace his own spiritual 
descent from /St. Peter or St. Paul.” 

The entire primacy question, you know, turns upon 
this point — whether in early times, there were diocesan 
bishops, having exclusive right to ordain and to govern 
other ministers ; and that this was divinely commanded ? 

Let us see now, whether this fact was questioned 
during the first fifteen hundred years of the church's 
history. Prelatical writers always appeal to the 
Fathers. Well, let us hear them on this point : 

Clement, of Rome, who lived, according to different 
authors, from the year 40, to 92 ; says: “ Only let 
the flock of Christ be in peace with the presbyters that 
are set over you.” Again, “ do ye, therefore, who first 
laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to 
your presbyters.” Much more might be quoted from 
him, but I must be brief. He uses, I know, the same 
language in regard to bishops, but he no where speaks 
of the latter, as having the exclusive rights of diocesan 
bishops. 

Ignatius lived about the beginning of the second 
century. He says: “ The presbyters preside in the 

place of the council of the Apostles.” 

Polycarp was cotemporay with Ignatius. He says 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION'. 87 

not a word about bishops of any kind, but does say in 
effect frequently, that presbyters governed the church. 

The same doctrine may be quoted from almost all 
these early writers called Fathers, Irenaeus, Clement 
of Alexandria, Tertullian, Oregin, Cyprian, Ambrose, 
Jerome, &c., &c. Aud in later times, when bishops 
began to assume prelacy, there was very considerable 
controversy on the subject. “ A candid examination 
of the Episcopal Church,” says — “ there was but one 
instance of controversy on this subject previous to the 
fourth century.” 

And the certainty of your doctrine and history was 
questioned by some other persons in later years of con¬ 
siderable note in the church. All the German and 
French reformers of note, were against the high 
pretensions of bishops, from Luther on. The Anglican 
Reformation, in the days of Elizabeth and Henry VIII, 
proceeded upon this basis of presbyterial government 
and ordination. 

John Wesley says: “I deny that the Romish 
bishops came down by uninterrupted succession from 
the Apostles. I never could see it proved, and I am 
persuaded I never shall.” Again, he says: “The 
figment of the uninterrupted succession I know to be a 
fable.” 

The very learned Dr. Adam Clarke, the commentator, 


88 


LETTERS ON 


says: “ By the kind Providence of God, it appears 

that He has not permitted any Apostolical succession to 
be promised, lest the members of Ilis church should 
seek that in an uninterrupted succession, which must be 
found in the Head alone.” Again, he says: 

“ It is idle to employ time in proving that there is no 
such thing as an uninterrupted succession of this kind. 
It does not exist. It never did exist. It is a silly 
fable invented by ecclesiastical tyrants , and supported 
by clerical coxcombs .” 

(I beg the Doctor’s pardon for being so idly employed 
just now; but he did not know whose sermons might 
require to be reviewed in these later times.) 

The learned and very distinguished Dr. Doddridge, 
in his lectures, says: — “It is a very precarious and 
uncomfortable foundation for Christian hope, which is 
laid in the doctrine of an uninterrupted succession of 
bishops, and which makes the validity of the administra¬ 
tion of Christian ministers to depend upon such a suc¬ 
cession, since there is so great darkness upon many 
periods of ecclesiastical history, insomuch that it is not 
agreed who were the first seven bishops of the Church of 
Rome , although that church was so celebrated .” 

At this particular point I think I ought, in order to 
make my argument tolerably satisfactory to yourself 
and others, show, as I very easily can, several actual 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


89 


breaches in this supposed chain of prelatical ordinations. 
If I did not think I had already produced testimony 
sufficient to create something of a doubt in your mind, 
as to the perfect certainty of your historical chain of 
ordinations I would copy from the researches of scholars 
some ten or a dozen actual breaches in this chain. 

Sometimes in conducting an argument one feels a lack 
of sufficient authority to prove his positions. But my 
present difficulty is the very reverse. Authorities, both 
numerous and weighty, press in upon me from every 
quarter; they appear so useful and inviting, that nothing 
but my determination to make these letters very brief, 
causes me to pass them by. I could easily show from 
very reliable authority, that 

1. A bishop of Home was in office without any con¬ 
secration whatever. 

2. A bishop of Rome, who in Council was repeatedly 
declared to be no bishop, conferred orders on an Arch¬ 
bishop of Canterbury. 

3. Several schisms among the bishops of Rome. 

4. An English prelate consecrated by an Arch¬ 
deacon. 

5. Several English prelates ordained by Scottish 
Presbyters. 

* 6. An Archbishop of Canterbury ordained by ejected 
prelates^ 


90 


LETTERS ON 


7. Boys consecrated prelates. 

8. Simony of both the Roman and English prelates, 
and I could show personal and official immorality in 
popes and bishops, not a little. But in order to be brief, 
I must forego the citation of authority in these and 
numberless other points tending to the same conclusion, 
and will close this letter by giving you the views of 
Macauley, the celebrated historian, on the subject, now 
in hand: 

“ The transmission of orders from the Apostles to an 
English clergyman of the present day, must have been 
through a very great number of intermediate persons. 
Now, it is probable that no clergyman in the Church of 
England can trace up his spiritual genealogy from 
bishop to bishop, even so far back as the time of the 
Reformation. There remains fifteen or sixteen hundred 
years, during which, the history of the transmission of 
his orders, is buried in utter darkness. And whether 
he be a priest by succession from the Apostles, depends 
on the question whether, during that long period, some 
thousands of events took place, any one of which, may, 
without any gross improbability, be supposed not to 
have taken place. YVe have not a tittle of evidence to 
any one of these events. We do not even know the 
names or countries of the men to wffiom it was taken 
for granted that these events happened. We do not 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


91 


know whether the spiritual ancestors of any of our 
contemporaries were Spanish or Armenian, Arian or 
Orthodox. In the utter absence of all particular 
evidence, we are surely entitled to require that there 
should be very strong evidence, indeed, that the strictest 
regularity was observed in every generation, and that 
episcopal functions 'were exercised by none who were 
not bishops by succession from the Apostles. But we 
have no such evidence. In the first place, we have not 
full and accurate information touching the polity of the 
church during the century that followed the persecution 
of Nero. That, during this period, the overseers of all 
the little Christian societies, scattered through the 
Roman empire, held their spiritual authority by virtue 
of holy orders derived from the Apostles, cannot be 
proved by contemporary testimony, nor by any testi¬ 
mony which can be regarded as decisive. The question, 
whether the primative ecclesiastical constitution bore a 
greater resemblance to the Anglican or to the Calvin- 
istic model, has been fiercely disputed. It is a question 
on which men of eminent parts, learning and piety, 
have differed, and do to this day differ very widely. It 
is a question on which at least a full half of the ability 
and erudition of Protestant Europe has, ever since the 
reformation, been opposed to the Anglican pretensions. 

“ It is surely impolitic to rest the doctrines of the 


92 


LETTERS ON 


English Church on an historical theory, which to ninety- 
nine Protestants out of a hundred, would seem much more 
questionable than any of those doctrines. Nor is this 
all. Extreme obscurity overhangs the history of the 
middle ages, and the facts which are discernible through 
that obscurity prove that the church was exceedingly 
ill-regulated. We read of the sees of the highest 
dignity openly sold: transferred backwards and for¬ 
wards by popular tumult; bestowed sometimes by a 
profligate woman on her paramour; sometimes by a 
warlike baron on a kinsman, still a stripling. We read 
of bishops of ten years old; of bishops of five years 
old; of many popes who were mere boys, and who 
rivaled the frantic dissoluteness of Caligula; nay, of a 
female pope. And though this last story, once believed 
throughout Europe, has been disproved by the strict 
researches of modern criticism, the most discerning of 
those who reject it have admitted that it is not intrin¬ 
sically improbable. In our own island, it was the 
complaint of Alfred that not a single priest, south of 
the Thames, and very few on the north, could read 
either Latin or English. And this illiterate clergy 
exercised their ministry amidst a rude and half heathen 
population, in which Danish pirates, unchristened, or 
christen’d by the hundred on a field of battle, 
were mingled with a Saxon peasantry scarcely better 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


93 


instructed in religion. The state of Ireland was still 
worse. ‘ • Tot a ilia per universam Hiberniam dissolutio 
ecclesiasticce disciplinoe—ilia ubique pro consuet udine 
Christiana soeva subintroducta barbaries ,” are the 
expressions of St. Bernard. We are therefore, at a 
loss to conceive how any clergyman can feel confident 
that his orders have come down correctly. Whether he 
be really a successor of the Apostles, depends on an 
immense number of such contingencies as these. 
Whether, under King Ethel wolf, a stupid priest might 
not, while baptizing several scores of Danish prisoners, 
who had just made their option between the font and 
the gallows, inadvertantly have omitted to perform the 
rite on one of these graceless proselytes ? Whether in 
the seventeenth century, an imposter who had never 
received consecration, might not have passed himself 
off as a bishop on a rude tribe of Scots ? Whether a 
lad of twelve did really by a ceremony huddled over 
when he was too drunk to know what he was about, 
convey the episcopal character to a lad of ten? 

Since the first century, not less, in all probability, 
than one hundred thousand persons have exercised the 
functions of bishops. That many of these have not 
been bishops by Apostolical succession, is quite certain. 
Hooker admits that deviations from the general rule 
have been frequent, and with a boldness worthy of his 


94 


LETTERS ON 


high and statesmanlike intellect, pronounces them to 
have been often justifiable. 4 There may be,’ he says, 
4 sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow 
ordination made without a bishop. Where the church 
needs must have some ordained, and neither hath nor 
can have possibly a bishop to ordain, in case of such 
necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given 
oftentimes , and may give place. And therefore we are 
not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of 
power from the Apostles by continued succession of 
bishops in every effectual ordination.’ There can be 
little doubt, we think, that the succession, if it ever 
existed, has often been interrupted in ways much less 
respectable. For example, let us suppose — and we 
are sure that no person will think the supposition by 
any means extravagant — that in the third century, a 
man of no principle and some parts, who has, in the 
course of a roving and discreditable life, been a cate¬ 
chumen at Antioch, and has there become familiar with 
Christian usages and doctrines, afterwards rambles to 
Marseilles, where he finds a Christian society, rich, 
liberal, and simple-hearted. He pretends to be a 
Christian, attracts notice by his abilities and affected 
zeal, and is raised to the episcopal dignity without 
having ever been baptized. That such an event might 
happen, nay, was very likely to happen, cannot be well 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


95 


disputed by any one who has read the life of Peregrinus. 
The very virtues, indeed, which distinguished the early 
Christians, seem to have laid them open to those arts 
which deceived 

“ Uriel, though Regent of the Sun, and held 
The shax-p-sighted spirit of all in heaven.” 

Now, this unbaptized imposter is evidently no suc¬ 
cessor of the Apostles, he is not even a Christian; and 
all orders derived through such a pretended bishop are 
altogether invalid. Do we know enough of the state 
of the world and of the church in the third century, to 
be able to say with confidence that there were not at 
that time twenty such pretended bishops ? Every such 
case makes a break in the Apostolic succession. 

Now, suppose that a break, such as Hooker admits 
to have been both common and justifiable, or such as we 
have supposed to be produced by hypocrisy and cupidity, 
were found in the chain which connected the Apostles 
with any of the missionaries who first spread Chris¬ 
tianity in the wilder parts of Europe; who can say 
how extensive the effect of this single break may be ? 
Suppose that St. Patrick, for example, if ever there was 
such a man, or Theodore of Tarsus, who is said to have 
consecrated, in the seventh century, the first bishops of 
many English sees, had not the true Apostolical orders, 
is it not conceivable that such a circumstance may affect 


96 


LETTERS ON 


the orders of many clergymen now living ? Even if it 
were possible, (which it assuredly is not,) to prove that 
the church had the Apostolical orders in the third 
century, it would be impossible to prove that those 
orders were not, in the twelfth century, so far lost that 
no ecclesiastic could be certain of the legitimate descent 
of his own spiritual character. And if this were so, 
no subsequent precautions could repair the evil.” 

Now, sir, I think I may console myself with the 
belief that I have at least rendered it somewhat 
doubtful as to the certain correctness of this chain 
of succession, and am, 

Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 


R. A. 








E E T TER X. 

' * *; • t 

THE ATTEMPT TO AVOID ROME IN THE SUCCESSION. 

Reverend and Dear Sir: —You are aware, that 
most of the great men of the world are decidedly against 
the succession scheme. But before I mention the names 
of several men who are opposed to it, let me say, that 
God himself opposes it. Whenever God has revived 
Apostolic truth and gospel holiness, he has chosen men 
out of (or beyond) the boasted succession for his instru¬ 
ments. When and where ever did religion revive greatly, 
in the 'succession ? A glance at the history of real, true, 
vital religion will show any man that God himself speaks 
in tones of thunder from the Vatican of heaven, against 
this intolerant succession scheme. But I must hold 
just now, for I have a matter or so, on this particular 
point, which I am holding in reserve, until after a while. 
You shall have it in a letter, or £wo paore, You are not 
quite prepared for it qow. 

But allow me to mention to you the names of such 
men as Irenaeus, Tertuilian, Cyprian, Gregory of 
Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, Beza, Dr. Barrow, Bouchart, 
Bishop Burnet, Claude, Dr. Cox, Cranmer, Dr. Field, 
Dr. Fulke, Dr. Mosheim, Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, 

‘ 9 


98 


LETTERS ON 


Peter the Martyr, Zanchius, Bradford the Martyr, Bishop 
Jewell, Whitaker, Field, Francis White, Bishop of Ely, 
Stillingfleet, Goodwin White, Bishop Hall, Wesley, 
Clarke, &c. Now, sir, here is an array of names which 
for distinguished learning and great abilities is absolutely 
formidable. Scores more might be added to it if neces¬ 
sary, but these alone form a fortress of learning, talent 
and piety, which is impregnable ; they believe in a 
succession of faith, and eschew a line of mere succes¬ 
sion ordinations, as containing the life-stream of spiritual 
religion. 

But, my dear Bishop, I must remind you of a way 
you have of making up your succession chain, or rather 
which you copy from Dr. Henshaw, which is very 
objectionable. You endeavor to jump from Palestina 
right into Great Britain ; and there you set up a church 
forthwith, with bishops and all that! Now, you ought 
not to do this ; for persons of reading and who are 
acquainted with history will see it, and make remarks 
about it. You know it is a new thing entirely. Nobody 
ever thought of such a thing until lately. 

You had better stick to the old chain. You can 
make something of a show there, but this new chain is 
absolutely ridiculous. You get on it in order to endeavor 
to avoid Rome . The thing is not only impossible, but 
I do not see the use of it. I know there is some little 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


99 


corruption, and matters of that sort, which lie along in 
the way; but what of that ? The unbroken chain of 
ordinations , provided it comes through bishops,, is the 
thing, and the only thing, according to your argument, 
which is essential to a valid ministry. The character of 
the persons, for morality or religion, who compose the 
chain, is nothing. By the way, I have a word on that 
point which I have laid aside for your ear in a future 
letter. But never mind that now. This is your doctrine. 
But, why are you so anxious to avoid Rome ? Cer¬ 
tainly you might as well attempt to avoid the Church 
of England, and jump from Palestina to America, as to 
avoid Rome, and jump from Palestina into England. I 
do not know of anything particular, in the way of either, 
except histoky. This is directly in the way of the 
attempt. 

And even after there come to be a church in Great 
Britain, with an Archbishop at its head, who, allow 
me to ask, in early times, ordained the archbishop ? 
An archbishop did not take his seat until his prede¬ 
cessor was dead ; and who ordained him ? I know this 
is a terrible question to put in right here, but it must 
be answered, if you please. I can tell you, sir, who 
ordained these archbishops. For eight centuries, at 
least, they were ordained by the popes of Rome, or by 
their legates, and by nobody else. 


100 


LETTERS ON 


Then, there was no line of succession in the arch- 
bishops; for, in tracing up the line, when you come to 
an archbishop, you next look for his ordainer; and 
where do you find him ? In his predecessor ? No. 
He did not ordain him, for he "was dead before that 
ceremony was performed. You must go from the 
archbishop, to find his ordainer, directly to Rome, and 
you find him in the person of the pope. So, at every 
step you are obliged to go to Rome. 

Why Dr. Hook himself, in his celebrated “ Two 
Sermons,” does not pretend to trace the line inde¬ 
pendently of Rome. He brings it, through sixty-four 
popes, to Gregory I, whom, he says, “ Ordained Patrick 
bishop of the Irish, and Augustine and Theodore for 
the English.” The introduction of Christianity into 
England and France, is a matter of great doubt and 
uncertainty. We have no reliable history on the 
subject. 

Bishop Goodwin, you may chance to recollect, in 
his work, entitled, “ A Catalogue of the Bishops of 
England,” gives numerous instances from the seventh 
century up to near the reformation, of the bishops and 
archbishops of the English church having been conse¬ 
crated by the pope, sometimes in person, and sometimes 
by his legates, and frequently in the city of Rome. 

It is said that St. Paul planted the gospel in Britain. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


101 


Perhaps he did ; it is conjecture , however, and not 
history. But suppose he did. There are still two 
difficulties in the way. First. What right had Paul , 
according to your doctrine, of succession from the 
eleven Apostles — he not being one of them — to 
ordain ? And, secondly , the well authenticated history, 
states that for several centuries the English bishops 
and archbishops were, in fact, ordained by the pope of 
Rome. To avoid Rome, you must make a history 
of more than fifteen hundred years out of one single 
material, viz: imagination. 

Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER XI. 


CHRIST COMMANDS US TO ABANDON AND FORSAKE CERTAIN 
SUCCESSION BISHOPS. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — If I am not greatly 
mistaken, this High Church notion of succession is at 
direct variance with the teachings of Christ and his 
Apostles. They taught that the truth or falsity of any 
man’s ministry was to be determined according to the 
truthfulness of his preaching and teaching, and the 
holiness of his life. And this modern scheme teaches, 
that the validity of any man’s ministry is to be deter¬ 
mined according to the succession of his ordination, or 
his pedigree. 

We are commanded to forsake and abandon all those 
ministers who preach and teach not the truth, succes¬ 
sion or no succession. “ Beware of false prophets, 
which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly 
they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by 
their fruits.” Matt, vii, 15. “ A stranger will they 

NOT FOLLOW ; but WILL FLEE FROM HIM.” John X, 5. 
“ I would that they were even cut off which trouble 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


103 


you.” Gal. v, 12. “If any man teach otherwise, and 
consent not to wholesome words,” &c. &c.,— “from 
such withdraw thyself.” 1 Tim. vi, 3, 5. “Now, 
we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from 
every brother that walketh -disorderly, and not after the 
tradition which ye received of us.” 2 Thess. iii, 6. 
There are many such passages as these. 2 Cor. xi, 13, 
and iv, 2 ; Rev. xvi, IT, 18 ; Acts xx, 29, 30. 

Here and elsewhere, in the scriptures, it is positively 
commanded , that wicked and false teaching ministers 
shall be forsaken and avoided; they shall not be 
permitted to teach, or rule, or execute the duties of any 
office in the Church of God, because they are usurpers, 
thieves, and robbers. And it is the bounden duty 
of all others to abandon them, and utterly to forsake 
them. It is in direct disobedience to the commands of 
God, to follow after them, to listen to their teachings, 
to recognize their ecclesiastical authority, or have any 
thing to do with them. 

Now, if these commands of God had been obeyed, 
where would your succession have been, long since ? 
There would have been gaps in the chain, several of 
them of more than a century in length. The bribed, 
bribing, blood-thirsty, licentious, drunken, or simonical 
bishop, would have been left to himself. He would 


104 


LETTERS ON 


have had no one ‘to ordain. Is thi3 succession, then 
of God, or of men ? 

I need not stop here, to prove the wickedness of the 
church in former times. I have authentic histories 
before me, besides what has already been submitted, 
from which might be copied, if need be, books full of 
the most abominable wickedness that any history of the 
world treats of. In the ninth, and on until about the 
fifteenth century, the church, though there were occa¬ 
sionally found in it good and pious men, yet, for the 
most part, the church made no pretensions to religion, 
or even common morality. 

St. Bernard, in the twelfth century, says : u The 
offices of ecclesiastical dignity are turned into filthy 
lucre, and a work of darkness.’’ 

In the same century, the church dignitaries are 
spoken of by Eugenius, as “ ambitious, coveteous, sacri¬ 
legious, simonical, incestuous persons, fornicators, and 
such like monsters of mankind.” 

In the thirteenth century, Matthew Paris, speaking 
of the unenviable condition of the Church of England, 
says, “ Their simony was committed without shame.” 

In the fourteenth century, Marsillius, of Padua says, 
“ Men ignorant of the holy scriptures, undisciplined 
and notoriously criminal, were placed in the highest 
thrones of the church, by simony.” 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


105 


Prideaux enumerates among popes and bishops, “ forty 
Egyptian magicians , forty-one devouring Abaddons , 
forty luxurious Sodomites , and twenty-one incurable 
Babylonians” One was “ rather a thief, a murderer, 
and a traitor to his country, than a pope,” &c. 

Now, sir, I ask you, are we, as Christians, or were 
any other men as Christians, at any period of the world, 
required to be connected in church association with 
such men ? If they were proper or admissible persons 
to govern and keep alive* the church five hundred years 
ago, then they would be, if they lived here, now. But 
the truth is, my dear sir, it seems to me, that God 
never did own them. He was angry with them every 
day, if the Bible be true. And every Christian man 
who lived in their days, was bound by the imperative 
command of God to “ forsake ” them, and leave them 
to themselves, and flee from them, succession or no 
succession. The Bible declares all such persons to be 
“ thieves and robbers,” for they “ climb up some other 
way.” If they ordained men, it was in violation of 
God’s command. How, then, sir, will you tell me, can 
they claim to be in the ministry, and stand as the 
spiritual representatives of Christ to the other clergy and 
the church ? 

False teachers, if we obey Christ, must be expelled 
from the church. Hear the Apostle at Gal. i, 8, 9: 


LETTERS. 


10b 


“ But though we, or an angel from heaven should 
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have 
received, let him be accursed,” that is, excommunicated. 

The doctrine and conduct of the Apostles, on this 
point, is not only plain and simple, but it has reason and 
common sense to support it. They determine the truth 
of the ministry , by the truth of their doctrine , and the 
soundness of their faith. Our High Church friends 
determine the truth of the ministry from their episcopal 
ordinations, or their tactical personal succession from 
some preceding person, who had a sound doctrine and 
a sound faith. I would like to hear your opinion as to 
which mode we should adhere to. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours, respectfully, 


, R. A. 

, aux mAt SA Si 

cU*xj*\ 

^uuAk'^ ^ * uUt*. Jr J ^ 

nnJ/ZL fKZfc (k*J*L OuA-~ +?*■*>*&4*b* 

(' 


f // 1 

uu 


rtufkxt- U- £c*4 











LETTER XII. 


HOW CAN THE SUCCESSION PASS THROUGH WICKED HANDS! 


Reverend and Dear Sir: — Let me now. 


ul 

dear Bishop, present to you a view of the matter, which 

seems to me to be of very grave import. I do not see 

how this life-stream of the church , can pass through 

wicked hands, and yet retain its purity. You say, in 

your sermon, that, “ this society (the church) must be 

made the depository and guardian of his written word.” / ’. /; c > 

What! God make wicked men the depository and 

guardians of his written word ? No, sir, God could not 

do this under the existing economy. 

You say the commission was to be transmitted 
“ through faithful hands, to the generation that suc¬ 
ceeded.’’ But I am now talking about wicked men . 

How does it get through their hands ? 




0 

The argument you know, of Drs. Hook, Percival, 

Hobart, and others is, that the wickedness of the person 
does not prevent the discharge of official duty by him. 


I-L-l 


And they argue in this way : They say that a judge 
may be immoral, but this does not interfere with his 
legal decisions. 














u 


■ I 




4 * 


4SS- 


108 


LETTERS ON 


Bishop Hobart says : — 

“The acts of a wicked magistrate, the decisions of 
a corrupt judge — are valid, because of his commission. 
The acts of our unholy ministers of the church are 
valid, for the same reason, because of their commission” 
Churchman Armed — Hobart’s Apology p. 142. 

Well, let us see how far this is true, and how far the 
cases are parallel. Immoralities, to a certain extent in 
a judge, are not a disqualification for office; and to this 
extent, and this far only, it may be said that immo¬ 
rality does not invalidate his official acts. But any 
immorality which the law holds as a disqualification for 
office, would nullify his official acts. If he attained his 
office by usurpation or violence, his official acts would 
not be worth a groat. In fact, he never, really , held 
the office, and so of the bishop. 

But the cases are by no means parallel, hence the 
illustration is irrelevant. “ The acts of an unholy minis¬ 
ter of the church are valid because of his commission.” 
In what sense is the term “ valid ” here used ? Of course 
it is meant that it is of legal , binding force. But 
binding upon whom ? They may be binding as to the 
parties , that is, the church, the bishop and the person 
ordained. But this is not the question. The only 
pertinent question here is, is the act binding upon 
Christ ? Do his promises say so ? If they do, then he 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


109 


promises yes , and no ,- to the same proposition. He 
promises eternal severance, unmitigated wrath, daily 
anger, disallowance, and many such like things, of and 
towards all sinners. He says, that all wicked men are 
aliens from God, and strangers to him. They are 
banished from his presence, they are an offence unto 
him ; and in the strong language of eternal truth, put 
into the mouth of John in Patmos, he spews them out of 
his mouth. Now, sir, all these principles, and pledges, 
and promises are forfeited, if he has one time said that 
he will be with and co-operate in the ordination to the 
ministry, performed by a wicked man, whatever may be 
his personal history otherwise. A wicked bishop may 
ordain a holy minister, and the parties are bound by the 
ordination, and the minister may go on in the work of 
his master, not his master the bishop, but another master, 
and his labor may be blessed in the salvation of souls ; 
but the life-stream of salvation to himself does not come 
to him, and through him to them, through the wicked 
hands of his ordainer, but directly from Christ. Such 
a minister is Christ’s minister, not the bishop’s. For, in 
the strong language of scripture, Christ never knew that 
bishop; he was all the while without God and without 
hope in the world. 

It is by this plain unanswerable reasoning, this simple 
scripture mode, that I distinguish between an ordination 



ii' ' • «jn| ^vi» $ 

110 LETTERS 0^ | " 

that may be “ valid,” that is binding, as to the parties, 
and utterly void as to Christ. 

Suppose I was to go to Bishop Onderdonk of New 
York, to day ; (I mention him merely because I happen 
to think of him, and because he is in the succession;) 
suppose I go to him and offer him a thousand dollars if 
he will ordain me a bishop. Yes, he says, that is a liberal 
price, and he ordains me. Would you, Bishop Greene, 
recognize me as a true and lawful bishop in the suc¬ 
cession ? Do you say no ? Then I ask you why not ? 
Because my orders were obtained by simony ? What, 
, sir, does the money invalidate the ordination ? Well, 
sir, then all I ask is for you to take your own argument, 
and YOUR ordination is invalid. For no man will deny 
that many of your predecessors procured their orders 
in this very way. Simony is seen all through the 
succession in hundreds of places. WAn 

And again: suppose that I, in company with two or 
three friends, was to go to yourself. I would be a 
“ Churchman Armed ”— (I have read a book, occa¬ 
sionally, you know, with this title, which reminds me 
of the appellation) — and I was to demand of you 
bishop’s orders. You would naturally ask me for my 
authority; and I would, as would my friends also, 
present to you a revolver, and tell you to proceed with 
the ceremony ! You would have to do it, of course ; for 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


Ill 


with a “ Churchman,” thus “ armed,” there is no telling 
what might happen. Now, my dear Bishop, there is 
not the least danger in the world that such a thing will 
happen, but suppose it should? Would ordinations 
performed by me, (my own being thus procured,) 
be valid ? Why not ? Are ordinations procured by ' 
violence invalid ? Then, my dear sir, where is this 
chain of yours ? I see it lying around here, strewed 
about, a few links in a place ! Your predecessors wxre, 
many of them, ordained in this way. And if you, sir, 



rely upon the succession for the validity of your orders, 
then you have no valid orders, unless you grant that I 
would be a valid bishop, in either of the above supposed 
cases. 

This dilemma is, I grant, rather an uncomely one; 
but there it stands, and the best I can possibly do, is 
to offer you either horn. 

I am very sure, that no reading man can, for one 
moment deny, nor will you for one moment question, 
that many episcopal ordinations, in times past, were 
procured by simony and violence. The money and the 
sword have repeatedly procured them. Now, the question 
^^is not, whether you or your church would now approve 
r ( or sanction such ordinations. I know you would not. 
But the question is, supposing such ordinations to have 
been performed, would they be absolutely, ipso facto , 




;$L 


112 LETTERS pK ? «, 

void, because procured in such ways ? How do you 
answer this question ? If such orcjfiianions would be 
void, of course ordinations conferred- by |hose who thus 
received theirs would be void, aiiif*then yours i3 void. 


If they would not be void, then anj^ftrem, with a purse 
or a sword, can set up and perpetuate a valid ministry, 
with scriptural “ ministerial authority ; ” and of right , 
claim the covenanted mercies and blessings of Jesus 


Christ. And Christ’s promise, you say, guarantees 
them to him. 

There, Reverend Sir, is a question that no man can 
answer ! I defy the power of argument , or the force 
of logic , to meet that issue. 

But again: In what does this succession consist ? 
What is its essence? What is it that succeeds, or 
passes down through the bishops ? If it is anything, it 
is a spiritual life-stream, coming down from Christ, and 
giving vitality to Christians and to the church. Now, 
this life-stream, it is said, passes down through ordained 
bishops, and by them it is diffused so as to give life and 
health to the church. But how can this stream pass 
through wicked hands ? That is the mystery to me. I 
can see how it may pass in holy hands, that is, how the 
succession might proceed in a line of holy men, sup¬ 
posing a church to rest upon such a basis, for holy men 
are God’s friends, and his instruments of doing good. 





S’ 


.N 




Vi 


% Vi 

? I 




^ J 

i ‘J vV 




i 




f4 


AJ^ST^LI(^L ^tJ^CEgfel^N ^ ^ $ 




T' 


113 


Ov 


But when this holy treasure, this great sympathetic 
nerve of salvation, passes into the hands of one of God’s 
enemies, a wicked man, whom God was cursing every 
day, an enemy and hater of both Christ and the flock, 
a wolf in wolf’s clothing, how it can pass safely through 
his hands, when you say that Christ said of it, 
command you to commit the same to faithful men.” i 
This is, sir, more than I can divine. 

I can see how the wire unites the telegraph offices; 
but suppose you take out sections of the wire, and 
insert pieces of twisted rope, or grape vine, or slips of 
bark ; what then ? Does the “ transmission ” go on as 
before ? I can see how a fountain may be pure, and the 
stream pure in its course; but I cannot, for the life of 
me, see how it may pass through a filthy cess pool, 
where the swine wallow, and still retain its purity. 
This strange mixture — I suppose it is owing to my 
dullness—but I cannot understand it. 

Is it possible, Bishop, that in any way, shape, or 
form, the grace of God can be dependent for its 
transmission or perpetuity, upon wicked men ? Why 
God says to the wicked, “ What hast thou to do to 
declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take my 
covenant in thy mouth ? ” Bad men in the church 
are, I believe, expressly declared to be heathen men 
and publicans. 

10 


. [n 






ih ^ 


uL 4 . 


^' 


t A 










114 


LETTERS ON 


No man can for a moment suppose, it seems to me. 
that anything spiritual for the church’s good, or for the 
good of Christians, can pass through wicked hands. If 
so, then the stream is something merely official. 

Well, take this view of it. It is something merely 
official. Well, whatever it is , it is that which gives 
life and character to the church. And if it be merely 
an official something, then the church consists of merely 
official functions and forms, with no spiritual vitality! 
Will this do ? If not, how else will you have it fixed ? 
If the essence of this descending stream is neither 
spiritual nor official, it is nothing. I can conceive of 
no other issue. 

If you will look at the third chapter of 1 Timothy, 
you will see what a bishop u must be.” If he have 
not these moral qualifications he is not a bishop, what¬ 
ever else he may be, in the sight of God. If he 
appears to men to have these qualifications, and has 
them not, men may honestly believe him to be a bishop, 
and God will not work any detriment to them in conse¬ 
quence of this error. But if men know him to lack 
these qualifications, then how can they, without com¬ 
mitting a fraud upon the Almighty, treat with him as 
though he were a bishop? Now, how can a man who is 
known of men to be wicked, and therefore known not 
to be a bishop, form, in. their estimation a part of the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


115 


channel for the transmission of the life-blood of the 
church! The church derives its support from, and 
rests for its being upon, a church-hating. God-hating, 
wicked man!! 

And not only is the church dependent for its very 
living upon a wicked man, but that man is not, and 
cannot be, a member of Christ’s Church. Whether he 
appears to men to be a Christian, and thereby impresses 
it upon their ignorance, is not the question. The question 
is, whether he is, in the sight of God, who sees things 
as they really are, a Christian. I suppose it will not 
be contended that a man may be a Christian, in opposi¬ 
tion to the will of God, for Christians are “ in Christ 
Jesus,” and I suppose no man can get there without 
Christ’s consent. 

According to your plan, you may have a Christian Q., \ 

Church without a Christian in it, which I suppose is a 
solecism. Suppose, that kennel of infidels in Boston, 
for sport or for money, or no matter for what motive, 
were to procure Episcopal ordination, for one of their T - 
number, in the same way many of your predecessors, in 
the “ chain,” have notoriously procured it, by simony, ^ ^ 
purchasing it with money, or by violence or fraud ; and 




suppose he wants to ordain, and then establish them, with 




all the external appearances, a church ? Would that be 
a church ? Every thing was done with due observance 




A 




Vv t ' . • / '•£ n. r .. ; #. / 




116 


LETTERS ON 


of all the forms, and the “ authority ” which came in the 
regular succession. Now, sir, I defy you to show, that 
that club of infidels w r ould not be a church , without 
doing violence to the main pillar arguments of your suc¬ 
cession writers. That, sir, is reditctio ad absurdum. 

It is admitted that all true religion and all spiritual 
succor and advantage, must originate in, and proceed 
from Christ. Well, must it, in its descent to the church, 
come through a holy Apostle ? Would it not do if it 
came through Judas ? Right here your High Church 
writers have been driven so completely to the wall, that 
they have been compelled to cling to Judas. And they 
have even attempted to make a virtue of his case, by 
attempting to show, that personal wickedness, in a 
bishop, did not work a severance of the chain of suc¬ 
cession : for, say they, Judas was both an Apostle and 
a devil, under the eye of the Saviour. 

But I answer, what has this to do with the question ? 
If you could show that Judas was a bishop, authorized 
to preach the gospel, and to ordain ministers, and that 
he continued to do these things after he fell into wicked¬ 
ness, then you might make something of an argument; 
and perhaps, show that he is a proper and fitting prede¬ 
cessor of some of your present bishops, who stand in 
the same category with him. If you could show that 
Judas, under the eye of the Saviour, or his Apostles. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION'. 


11? 


was m the chain of succession, then you would have a 
place to commence such an argument. 

But what are the facts ? Was Judas a bishop ? Was 
he a minister of the gospel ? Was he authorized to 
preach ? or to ordain others to preach ? Why, sir, the 
ministry of the gospel was not even authorized to be 
preached in the life-time of Judas. Judas Iscariot 
was dead before the Apostolic commission was given. 
Judas never heard of a gospel or a ministry. He did 
not live in the gospel dispensation. Christ had neither 
shed his blood for sinners, nor had he risen from the 
dead until after the life and death of Judas. Why 
Judas was no more in this “ succession ” than was 
Nebuchadnezzar ; for the gospel ministry originated after 
his death. 

It need not be attempted to jostle me out of this 
position; and I am sure no fair man acquainted with 
Christianity will attempt it, by the fact, that in the life¬ 
time of the Saviour he sent the twelve Apostles forth to 
, preach, with Judas among them. The subject matter 
of that preaching could, in the very nature of things, 
have been only the assertion of their assurance that 
Jesus ivas the true Christ. None were converted under 
that preaching, for the Holy Ghost was not yet given. 
The Apostles themselves were not then converted, in the 
sense in which Christians use that term. My argument 


& ? 
£ 1 


£ 


i J 

V f 
? 4 * 




118 


LETTERS ON 


is conclusive , however, on this point, from the two simple, 
unquestionable facts, that it was not until after Christ’s 
resurrrection that the Apostolic commission, and the 
first authority to ordain ministers was given by Christ to 
mankind, and that Judas died before that time. 

Show us, that Jesus Christ, either by precept or 
example authorized an unholy man to preach his gospel, 
and then, I grant, you will have shown, what it seems 
to me you are attempting to show, that a wicked ministry 
is as good as a holy ministry, or at least, that it will do ! 

Well, suppose I, for a moment grant, that Judas was 
a bishop in the gospel ministry, authorized to ordain 
others. And suppose it was demonstrated that the 
“ministerial authority” of your church ■was derived 
through him. What would be the condition and pros¬ 
pects of a church claiming lineal descent from him. 
Would a man remain in it ? Would a man make such a 
living burlesque of himself as to be properly called a 
“ Judasite Christian ? ” The idea of a Christian ministry 
based upon Judas , is as ridiculous as it is wicked. 
And if the ministry you advocate, is not, in fact, 
based upon that celebrated sinner, it holds to the same 
principle, for it notoriously and confessedly rests upon, 
and depends for its existence upon far more sinners, 
though perhaps not quite so celebrated in history. 

And again: You make a strange, and, to me. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


119 


unmeaning use of the Saviour’s promise to his ministers : 
“ Lo, I am with you alwav, even unto the end of the 
world.” What does that mean ? How , in what way , 
is Christ to be with his ministers ? Obviously in the 
power and unction of the Holy Ghost, moving, striving, 
influencing, and encouraging them in their arduous 
and cross-bearing duties. Well, hoiv is the fulfillment 
of this promise practically understood, or felt, or appre¬ 
ciated ? What demonstration have we of it ? You say, 
by ascertaining who ordained the minister in question, 
and who ordained his ordainer, &c., tracing the line 
of ordination upward. But we say the minister inquires 
directly whether the Holy Ghost is with him, verily and 
truly. Does iie feel the presence of Christ ? I 
know very well that thousands of holy ministers well 
understand me, and I would fain believe that you, sir, 
may be able to attach a practical meaning to my words, 
when I say that the minister in the true succession, the 
true recipient of Christ’s promise, may and must feel 
and realize in himself , the movings, urgings, and encou- 
ragings of Christ’s very presence, and the sustaining 
power and unction of God’s Spirit assisting him in 
labor and difficulty, and impelling him forward in tho 
discharge of duty. This is the presence of Christ. 
What! must a man go and examine some ancient and 
modern records of licentiousness, and falsehood, and other 


LETTERS. 


;) 

120 

kinds of wickedness, (at least in some cases,) to ascer¬ 
tain whether Christ is with him , as a Christian minister ! 
I marvel at such ecclesiastical buffoonry! I protest 
that it is no high boasting in me to say that I can make 
a better system of religion than that myself. If Chris¬ 
tianity is not true, in the name of reason let us be 
infidels at once. I should prefer an intelligent infidel 
to an ecclesiastical ignoramus. 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER X 11L 


ABOUT FREE MASONRY, &o. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — One of the arguments 
brought forward by you to sustain the doctrine <jf suc¬ 
cession, jure divine , in a line of bishops, is its supposed 
agreement with the Masonic Order. Free Masons must 
believe in your doctrine, because they believe and 
practice the same thing. The doctrine if applicable to 
one is equally so to the other. This, I believe, is the 
scope of your argument on this point. 

Well, my dear Bishop, there is one thing, that 
occurs to me, at this moment, which you have failed to 
do in this analogical argument, and which deficiency 
you will pardon me for supplying. That is, to see what 
are the essential points of analogy between the church, 
according to your views of its organization, and the 
Order of Free Masons. And then, if you have no 
objections, I will look and see whether the succession 
you claim in the one, bears any resemblance to that 
which exists in the other. 

Well, then, the points of analogy between the two 
institutions : —The church is of divine origin, exclusively, 

11 


122 


LETTERS OX 


and subsists you say, since the days of the Saviour, by 
virtue of the unbroken continuation of supreme authority, 
contained in a stream, or chain of succession appoint¬ 
ments to office, handed down from one to another 
of its highest functionaries. The very being of the 
church, you say, rests upon the divine 'power or inr- 
fluence , first infused into, and still subsisting in, this 
streana of continuous appointment. 

Is this the character of Masonry ? Has it any one of 
these essential ingredients or constituents f 

The writer chances to know a little and very little 
about Masonry, and his view is, that the Order subsists 
in a mode, as unlike that of the church, according to 
your views of the elements of its subsistence, as it i 3 
possible to conceive. 

Well then, as to the kind of succession found in the 
two institutions. 

Succession , in some sense, is found in almost every 
thing. In the presidency of the nation, in the professor¬ 
ship of colleges, in legislative representation, in the over- 
seership of a plantation, in the gospel ministry, and in 
any other kind of ministry. All ministers are the suc¬ 
cessors of all ministers who preceded them. All masons 
are the successors of all masons who lived before them. 
All men are the successors of all their predecessors. 
These are simple trueisms. But the question is, is the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


128 


kind of succession, which you say subsists in the church, 
analogous to that in the Masonic Order ? Let us see. 

In the Church, you say, the elements of continuance 
reside in the order of bishops. A man once a bishop, 
is always a bishop ; that is, he is always in the order , 
and»always in the office of bishop. And he invests his 
successor with the order and the office, which he him¬ 
self possesses. The order and the office , necessarily 
inhere in the same person. He cannot go out of either 
his order or his office. The power of continuing his suc¬ 
cession resides in him , and is necessarily inherent in him. 

Now, is this so in the Masonic Lodge ? It is just a3 
near it as the two poles of the earth are to each other. 
A member, it is true, must attain to certain degrees of the 
order, before he is eligible to office. But once eligible, he 
is Master of a Lodge to-day, at another time he holds a 
subordinate office, and now he is a private member, or 
layman; and perhaps again, he is Master of the Lodge. 
He is just as subject to mutation or change, as the 
most inferior member in degree, or order, which belongs 
to the fraternity. Not so in your scheme. Nor has 
the Master of a Lodge, necessarily, anything to do 
with the succession. The power of self-continuance 
resides in the Lodge itself , and not in the Master 
of it. The Master of the Lodge, to-day — which, in 
the analogy, is the bishop — is a private member, or 


124 


LETTERS ON 


layman, to-morrow, with no more official power, than 
the private member, who never held an office. 

Where then, my dear sir, is the analogy ? Any 
other association among men will serve you as well for an 
“ illustration ” as the Order of Masons. Indeed, I 
think you are unfortunate in your selection. * 

And again, the church commenced at the highest point 
of official attainment; and has proceeded downward. 
For, with all your boastings, you would hardly claim 
that a bishop is as high, in dignity or in prerogative, or 
in office, as an Apostle. So that in your u succession ” 
the inferior officer could not invest his superior with the 
badge of office. Did Masonry commence and proceed 
in this way ? Did it begin at the bottom and work 
upward, or at the top and work downward. When the 
tower of Babel was built — I was not there — but I 
presume they commenced at the base and finished at the 
apex. But according to your theory, they must have 
commenced at the top and worked downward! 

I have heard it whispered from more quarters than 
one, that this “ illustration,” as you call it, drawn from 
Free Masonry, was intended as a proselyting bait. I 
trust this was not the case, and I feel disposed to put 
the best construction to it, and would fain believe it was 
a mere inadvertence, put in hastily, to fill up an empty 
page. But there is on® thing I will hint to you 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


125 


privately — that is, your brethren of the Masonic Fra¬ 
ternity will expect of you, as a Mason, to do more honor 
to the Order, and give it a better exposition than this. 

Upon the whole, I regret that you have made this 
allusion to Free Masonry in your sermon, for it will 
cause the most intelligent of the Order to suppose that 
you are a better Bishop than you are a Mason. But 
before I conclude this letter, as it is a short one, allow me 
to allude to another point which I deem of importance. 

The baleful influence, of this doctrine of succes¬ 
sion, practically, upon the members and ministry of a 
church, in a religious point of view, and the manner 
in which it hinders the propagation and growth of vital 
godliness or experimental religion, is this. It is well 
known by all men at all acquainted with theology, 
that it was a peculiar gift of the Apostles to confer 
the gift of the Holy Ghost upon penitent or inquiring 
Christians. Now, then, bishops are the successors 
of the Apostles, and although I believe they do not 
pretend to succeed to all the offices of the Apostles, 
yet they do pretend to succeed them in this particular. 
This can readily be shown from all your writers. I 
presume, however, you will not question the fact. It is 
seen to be true by almost everything I have quoted in 
these letters from other divines, and could be further 
substantiated by scores of quotations that might be made. 


126 


LETTERS ON 


I do not mean that they claim, in terms, to confer 
the gift of the Holy Ghost, but they do claim to unite 
the sinner to Christ, by Apostolical means, yea, and by 
and with their own “ Apostolical hands,” winch, so far as 
I can conceive, is the same thing. By means of the 
ministrations of the bishop, and by no other means, the 
penitent is brought into union and a salvable relation¬ 
ship with Christ. The bishop has power, and has the 
only available power, to bring about the desired recon¬ 
ciliation between the sinner and the Saviour. The 
inferior clergy and the laity are united to Christ through 
the personal ministrations of the bishop. This is a 
cardinal doctrine with you. 

Now, the minister feels that he is in union with 
Christ, by whatever spiritual connection is necessary to 
unite him to the Saviour, because he is in the succession ; 
and not merely in it, but is in it in such a manner that 
he cannot be removed out of it. He has actually 
experienced the tactual connection personally. Now, 
a minister in this situation is on very high ground; 
and certainly he is in a very safe condition. Surely it 
is not very necessary, under such circumstances, that a 
man should be so very scrupulous about little matters of 
mere conduct. If any scruples should arise in this quarter, 
why he falls back upon the consolation that he is united 
to Christ by an inseverable medium. He cannot be 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


127 


detached from Christ, for the Saviour’s promise binds and 
holds him there. Now this position, it can but be seen, is 
far above and superior to that of the mere minister who is 
every day dependent upon the grace and mercy of Jesus 
Christ. He feels, that woe is me if I preach not the 
gospel, or if I cease to declare the whole counsel of God. 
And he goes forth with fear and and trembling, lest 
after he has faithfully preached to 'Others, he himself 
may be a cast-away. The difference in the situation 
of these two persons is certainly very great. If the 
former be false, it must lead to waywardness, formality, 
and looseness of life, by the irrepealable laws of cause and 
^effect— if not, then it is infinitely superior to the latter. 
Which do you think it is, sir? A little observation would 
probably decide. 

And the same observations may be made in regard to 
the lay membership of the church. In the one case the 
Churchman feels that lie has received his confirmation 
by tactual unity from his minister., a bishop, rather. 
I ought to have said, one who touched the Saviour 
(through several mediatorial links) as certainly as 
Thomas did. He is asked, upon what specific thing he 
depends for salvation ? And his answer is very ready. 
The life-giving stream of immaculate and saving virtue, 
which originated in Jesus Christ, was communicated in 
44 unbroken transmission ” to the very bishop at whose 


128 


LETTERS. 


hands he received the holy ministration. This is the 
virtue that saves, and here are the facts that show that 
he has been invested with it. He is therefore a Christian 
by the certitude of history. 

Now, a man with these high claims, is certainly on 
very high ground. Is it any marvel, that he feels him¬ 
self invested with an influence that cuts off from him the 
attraction of that temptation which can harm ? The 
ligature that binds Christ to his promises binds him to 
Christ. He is chained to his bishop, and his bishop is 
chained to Christ. And hence it is no marvel that we 
see in your church drunkenness, adultery, swearing, 
sabbath breaking, gaming, dancing, &c., which it is 
notoriously known, is common among a large portion of 
its members. 

But the Christian who feels and believes himself to be 
dependent upon the mercy and grace of God constantly, 
as he is for daily food, is in quite a different situation. 
He is unquestionably far below the successionist, or, 
upon a hypothesis which annihilates succession, far above 
the Churchman. So you see, that this doctrine of suc¬ 
cession is either of infinite value to the Christian, or it 
will lead many to destruction. 

I am, Reverend Sir, 

Very respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER XIV. 

' % 

THE ORDER OF BISHOPS. 

Reverend Sir : — I have already stated and proved 
from scripture, that in Apostolic times a bishop wa 3 
called a presbyter, and a presbyter a bishop, indiffer¬ 
ently — that the terms were both used — sometimes one, 
and sometimes the other, to denote the same person. 

They are not so used now, nor have they been for many 
years. A bishop now means, according to the doctrine 
of High Church episcopacy, an order of ministers 
above and superior to presbyters or elders, who are the 
special, personal, and peculiar successors of the Apostles, 
who have the exclusive right to ordain other ministers, 
and the exclusive right to govern the church and the 
other clergy, and that these rights, prerogatives, and 
duties are conferred upon the order by the Almighty. 

The more common signification of the term bishop, 
now is — a minister occupying the highest office, com¬ 
monly called an elder or presbyter, who, by an 
arrangement of the church, is elected or selected, to 
have the general oversight, either by himself or in 


130 


LETTERS ON 


connection with others, over the church of a district or 
region of country, for the ends of harmony, order, and 
good government. A Methodist bishop, for instance, 
which signifies an elder or presbyter, charged by the 
other ministry, with these peculiar duties. 

The question now is, and it is certainly one of impor¬ 
tance — how and when did this change come about ? 
How, if bishops were mere presbyters — did they come 
to assume the high prerogatives which the High Church 
bishops now claim and enjoy ? How and when came 
they to claim lineal descent from the Apostles, and to 
be regarded as a superior order of ministers, with the 
peculiar rights of ordination, control, and succession. 

You will observe, that it is not necessary these ques¬ 
tions should be answered at all, though the answers 
would certainly be very satisfactory, as a matter of 
ecclesiastical history. It would be conclusive, however, 
you will observe, that the change did come about in some 
way by mere human means, if what has already been 
shown be true, viz. : that the terms were originally 
used by inspired men to mean the same thing, and 
that now they mean differently. Words, you know, 
change their meaning — especially descriptive terms — 
in process of long ages, and even in short periods, 
by many occurrences or circumstances. 

If required to answer how and when the change in 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


131 


the use of this term came about, it ought certainly to 
be sufficient, seeing it did come about in some way, for 
me to reply that in the dark ages — in the ignorant and 
heathen ages of the church and the world, authentic 
history does not inform us. You know, that in those 
dark and illiterate periods, when books and learning 
became almost extinct, for centuries at a time, a thou¬ 
sand historical circumstances and facts, much more 
important than this, were totally lost to the world. 

In later ages, when literature was encouraged, and 
learning became respectable and honorable, the most 
learned men have gathered together every old page, 
scrap, and record that survived these illiterate periods, 
have carefully preserved them, and have written out, 
for the use and edification of the world, all of the 
history that those ancient records afforded. That which 
they found, which, in their judgment was genuine, we 
have — that which was never written, or if written 
became destroyed, of course is lost. 

I make these observations, not because we have no 
proof of the origin of diocesan bishops, but to show 
that our inability to furnish such proof, would give no 
cause for triumph on the other side of the question. 

You are aware that the late Bishop Hobart, of New 
York, and Dr. Hook, one of the chaplains to Queen 
Victoria, both very prominent writers in favor of the 


132 


LETTERS ON 


divine right of bishops, have endeavored at this point to 
brace their arguments considerably. They have vocifer¬ 
ously demanded that we shall show when, where, and 
how, bishops changed from mere presbyters into diocesan 
bishops, as they now are. And they boldly contend that 
unless we can show the history of the fact, that they have 
a right to conclude that the change did not occur at 
all; and then we must fall back upon the doctrine that 
bishops were, from the beginning, diocesan, as they are 
now, and that all their personal rights and prerogatives 
inhered in them from the beginning. This, I believe, 
is one of the prominent arguments of your writers; 
and it seems to me it is unfair, for it may be requiring 
of us an impossibility. 

Do not for a moment suppose, however, that I feel in 
the slightest degree unable to meet these arguments at 
the threshold, for it so turns out that we have abundant 
history on the subject. 

Gibbon says, “ The public functions of religion were 
solely intrusted to the established ministers of the 
church, the bishops and the presbyters ; two appellations 
which, in their first origin , appear to have distinguished 
the same office and the same order of persons. The 
name of presbyter was expressive of their age, or 
rather of their gravity and wisdom. The title of 
bishop denoted their inspection over the faith and 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 133 

manners of the Christians who were committed to their 
care. In proportion to the respective numbers of the 
faithful, a larger or a smaller number of these episcopal 
presbyters guided each infant congregation , ivith equal 
authority and with united counsels. 

“ But the most perfect tranquillity of freedom requires 
the directing hand of a superior magistrate; and the 
order of public deliberations soon introduces the office 
of a president, invested at least with the authority of 
collecting the sentiments, and of executing the resolu¬ 
tions of the assembly. A regard for the public tranquil¬ 
lity, which would have been so frequently interrupted 
by annual, or by occasional elections, induced the primi¬ 
tive Christians to constitute an honorable and perpetual 
magistracy, and to choose one of the wisest and most 
holy among their presbyters , to execute, during his life, 
the duties of their ecclesiastical governor. 

u It was under these circumstances that the lofty 
title of bishop began to raise itself above the humble 
appellation of presbyter; and while the latter remained 
the most natural distinction for the members of every 
Christian Senate, the former was appropriated to the 
dignity of its new president. The pious and humble 
presbyters who were first dignified with the episcopal 
title, could not possess, and would probably have 
rejected the power and pomp which now encircles the 


184 


LETTERS ON 


tiara of the Roman pontiff, or the miter of a German 
prelate. 

“ The primitive bishops were considered only as the 
•first of their equals , and the honorable servants of a free 
people. Whenever the episcopal chair became vacant 
by death, a new president was chosen among the pres¬ 
byters, by the suffrages of the whole congregation. 
Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the 
Christians were governed more than an hundred years 
after the death of the Apostles * 

This is the way, sir, in which you bishops originated. 
These facts, because of their importance, perhaps, are 
providentially preserved, and this celebrated historian 
thus gives them to the world. I have underscored 
some of his expressions in order' to call your mind 
particularly to them. 

In precise harmony with what Mr. Gibbon says, and 
which he more fully explains, we hear Tertullian, one of 
the Fathers, who wrote in the early part of the third 
century, remark ; “ In the ecclesiastical courts, approved 
elders preside, not distinguished for their opulence, but 
worth of character.” 

The thirteenth canon of the Council of Ancyra, which 
was held, A. D. 315, says: “ It is not allowed to village 
bishops to ordain presbyters or deacons ; nor is it allowed 


* Decline and Fall, vol. ii, 272, 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


185 


even to city presbyters to do this, in another diocess, 
without the license of the bishop/’ i 

Here you see the presbyter of the city not only had 
power to ordain, but had superior power to the bishop 
of the village. 

And we also hear Archbishop Cranmer, who, under his ■; i ? 
sovereign liege, may, with great propriety, be styled the 
founder of the Church of England, remark as follows: 

“ The bishops and priests at one time, were not two things, 
but both one office, in the beginning of Christ’s religion.” 

Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, 
informs us as follows : — 

“ The form of ecclesiastical government, whose com¬ 
mencement we have seen in the last century, was 
brought, in this, to a greater degree of stability and 
consistence. One inspector, or bishop , presided over 
each Christian assembly, to which office he was elected u/ u Lv 






by the voices of the whole people. In this post he was 

to be watchful and provident, attentive to the wants of %g 0 . t ^ f 

the church, and careful to supply them. To assist 

him in this laborious province, he formed a councils/ J, t 


of presbyters , which was not confined to any fixed 
number; and to each of these he distributed his task, 


and appointed a station in which he was to promote the 
interests of the church. To the bishops and presbyters, Q ■ 


the ministers or deacons were subject; and the latter 




—■ A/? V 


U, 


h, 






L 


tfc l /Li 






136 


LETTERS ON 


were divided into a variety of classes, as the different 
exigencies of the church required. 

“ During a great part of this century, the Christian 
churches were independent of each other; nor were 
they joined together by association, confederacy, or 
any other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian 
assembly was a little state, governed by its own law r s, 
which were enacted, or at least approved, by the 
society. But, in process of time, all the Christian 
churches of a province were formed into one large 
ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, 
assembled at certain periods, in order to deliberate 
about the common interests of the whole. This insti¬ 
tution had its origin among the Greeks, with whom 
nothing was more common than a confederacy of 
independent states; and the regular assemblies which 
met, in consequence thereof, at fixed times, were com¬ 
posed of deputies from each respective state. But 
these ecclesiastical associations were not long confined 
to the Greeks; their great utility was no sooner 
perceived, than they became universal, and were 
formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. 
To these assemblies, in which the deputies or commis¬ 
sioners of several churches consulted together, the 
name of Synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and 
that of Councils by the Latins; and the laws which 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


137 


were enacted in these meetings were called canons , 
i. e., rules. 

“ These councils, of which we find, not the smallest 
trace before the middle of this century (the second), 
changed the whole face of the church, and gave to it a 
new form. For by them the ancient privileges of the 
people were considerably diminished, and the power 
and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The 
humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, 
prevented their assuming all at once, the power with 
which they were afterwards invested. At their first 
appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged 
that they were no more than the delegates of their 
respective churches , and that they acted in the name and 
by the appointment of their people. 

“ But they soon changed their humble tone , imper¬ 
ceptibly extended the limits of their authority , turned 
their influence into dominion , and their counsels into 
laws ; and openly asserted , at length , that Christ had 
empowered them to prescribe to his people authoritative 
rules of faith and manners. Another effect of these 
councils was, the gradual abolition of that perfect 
equality, which reigned among all bishops in the prim¬ 
itive times. For the order and decency of these 
assemblies required, that some one of the provincial 
bishops, met in council, should be invested with a 
12 



138 


LETTERS ON 



superior degree of power and authority ; and hence the 
rights of metropolitans derive their origin.” * 

There, sir, is the way this thing came about. Just as 
I said. At the first all were called bishops. After a 
time it was thought best to select some of the more 


prominent to preside, or to superintend the general 
affairs. In process of time they became proud and 


assumed more than was at first given. “ The 'privileges 
of the people (for they at first, in connection with 
the clergy governed the church) were considerably 
diminished .” At first, “ they acknowledged that they 

were no more than the delegates of their respective 
P churches , and that they acted in the name and by the 

appointment of their people . ’ ’ ‘ 4 But they soon changed 
this humble tone and imperceptibly extended the limits 
of their authority.” 

^ ^ And now, in the face of this testimony, let me ask 


^ ' - 


you, where is this divine authority of yours, for the 
high and exclusive claims and pretensions of your 
bishops ? It is clear, that whatever authority they 
have above an elder, they have, in some way, (and it is 
very easily seen how,) received it since two hundred 
years after Christ. Now, certainly, I have made out' X 
my case in this particular. I have shown, by unques¬ 
tioned history, how bishops originated. Instead* of ‘ 




* Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, page 14o 


<3^ 


I 



\ 


s r m 

$ j : t)' ~ 

..rl- 



’-sir* 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


139 


'originating with Jesus Christ, and being an order 
above all other men, created for the safe-keeping and 
■safe transmission of the spiritual virtue or life-blood of 
the church, from Christ to the church, in all future time, 
it turns out that that order had its origin in matters of 
ecclesiastical government, long after Christ and his 
Apostles. And not only so, but its origin was in usur¬ 
pation and bad faith. 

Hoping that I have placed this question beyond 
doubt, and exhibited it entirely to your satisfaction — 
though I could furnish pages upon pages more of 
authority as good as this if it was necessary, and would 
not tire your patience —I am, 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours, respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER XV. 


THE MOTHER AND THE DAUGHTER. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — Your friends and 
acquaintances universally, so far as I know, attribute to 
you the labor, zeal, and industry of preaching what you 
understand to be the gospel, (in all the families where 
you visit, and they are many,) by representing that the 
Methodist Church is the daughter , and that the Episcopal 
Church is the mother. This daughter, you say, has 
strayed away from maternal care and solicitude, and is 
now wandering by herself, out among evil folks; and 
being destitute of the protection of a ministry — out of 
the Apostolical succession — is not only in constant 
disobedience to rightful ^ authority,” but is liable con¬ 
stantly to insult and injury. And so much do you 
dislike to see persons who have souls to save, especially 
the more respectable and the more wealthy, whose 
safety would excite the philanthropic feelings of almost 
any one, that you lose no opportunity of earnestly 
pressing the claims of this “ Mother Church,” and of 
representing the advantages of succession, and the 
wicked waywardness of this unruly daughter, to any 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


141 


wealthy lady and gentleman whom you can conveniently 
approach, and in fact to many persons who, in this 
country, are considered only in moderate or easy 
circumstances. Your zeal, being of that laborious 
character which should always characterize the Chris¬ 
tian ministry, and your labors, not being confined to 
those who are rich, but oftentimes descending to persons 
of only moderate means, is certainly commendable. 
The labors of the ministry should by no means be 
confined to the rich. In this, as in many other things, 
you and I certainly agree. 

The poor—of course, not much is to be expected 
from them — they can be of no material advantage to 
any church,* but then there are many persons in les3 
affluent circumstances, whose respectable standing in 
the community enable them to enhance the prospect of 
a church considerably. You do not by any means, at 
least so says that venerable and respectable personage, 
Common Fame, neglect these in your daily ministrations. 
If in all these classes of society, your views and admo¬ 
nitions as to the character, relationship, &c., of this 
mother and daughter are not known and heeded, it i3 
not your fault. 

And now, you will pardon me if I trouble you 
with some views of my own respecting this mother 


* In the way of worldly considerations — fame and money. 


142 


LETTERS ON 


church and daughter church. I will endeavor, briefly, 
for I assure you I am determined, at all hazards, to 
be very brief, in these letters — to trace a few points of 
resemblance between them, and say a few words as to 
the legitimacy of the relationship. 

But, allow me, if you please, in the first place to 
suggest, that I presume I would hardly be justifiable in 
supposing that your philanthropy was confined exclu¬ 
sively to the Methodist Church, as the only wayward 
daughter of this celebrated mother. Her mishaps, 
irregularities, and aberrations are the same, in your 
estimation as those of the various branches, Baptist, 
Presbyterian, &c. Though the Baptist Church, coming 
from the Waldenses, ought to be considered, I suppose, as 
the sister of the mother — the elder sister of the two, and 
is, therefore, the aunt of the Presbyterian and Methodist. 
The Presbyterian Church, sticking a little closer to the 
reformation than Queen Elizabeth and her reformers did, 
walked away from the maternal embrace, at an earlier 
period than Mr. Wesley and his followers, and is, there¬ 
fore, the elder daughter of mother Episcopal. I believe 
this is about the way of this family relationship. 

These two daughters, the Presbyterian, and the 
Methodist, who left their mother at a far later period, 
ought, you think, to come back. But where ought the 
Baptist to go ? That is a puzzling question. She has 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


143 


seniority of all the rest, establishment and all. But 
then she is out of the succession, which I presume is, 
in your estimation, a greater detriment than her age is 
advantage. 

But perhaps, sir, it is not the Anglican sense in which 
you speak of Episcopal as mother, and Methodist as 
daughter. In this country we are all new. And were 
it not for Dr. Hook’s 44 desert ” and 44 oasis,” which 
have got in the way of our history, which we will have 
the pleasure of looking at after a while, the case would 
stand something like this. That when 44 succession ” came 
to this country with her ministers and her 44 authority ” 
and her bishops, she found the Baptist, Methodist and 
Presbyterian Churches already here, where they had 
been preaching the gospel a generation or two, and 
where many thousands had been converted to God. 
In what sense then, will you allow me to inquire, can 
she be called the 44 mother ” of any body, here ? She 
is the foster 44 mother ” of many abominable heresies 
and corruptions, excuse me, sir, if I occasionally speak 
with great plainness, she is the foster mother of kingly 
and episcopal rule , in the church, which is as incongruous 
in Christianity as was Patrick’s complaint of having been 
forced to turn volunteer. She is the foster-mother of 
baptismal regeneration, of confirmation, of 44 forms ” 
instead of religion in the worship of God, of saint’s days, 


144 


LETTERS 025 


of the church’s right to interpret the Bible for every 
body, and of other such like things which follow in the 
train of this doctrine of succession, which we are now 
considering. But, if she is the mother of any thing or 
any body, in this country, my reading or observation 
has not led me to see it. 

Nor do I see here how she can be called the mother 
of any of the other churches in this country, for another 
reason, the family likeness is not strong, and the features 
are in some respects quite dissimilar. 

But in tracing these features, it seems to me you 
must take a side view, either on the right or the left. 
To look her full in the face her features would appear 
quite distorted and uncomely. On the one side you 
would observe the smooth and tolerably fair skin of a 
matron-like looking body, of middle years, rather gaily 
attired for the times, but presenting decided traces of 
philanthropy and good nature, and with little or nothing 
decidedly objectionable. Whilst on the other you would 
see the wrinkled and old maidish features of popery, 
strongly depicted. The Jesuitism of good nature is 
curiously mixed and mingled with the airs of dynasty 
and stern “ authority. ” The profile of Diotrephes 
may be easily discerned in the most legible lines of 
self-importance and episcopal arrogance. 

Now, I am told, in fact I believe it is well understood* 


APOSTOLIOAL SUCCKSSI0N. 


145 


that in introducing this mother into the various families 
where you visit, you invariably throw her vail, (as if 
carelessly,) over the fairest side, as I would consider it, 
showing only her features of popery, arrogance, and 
tyranny. Whilst the side face that is exposed to 
view is so dressed in rouge, ruffles, ribbons, and royalty, 
that the wrinkles of popery are thrown quite in the 
back ground. Or if you will allow me [to speak ^without 
a figure, which I have introduced only at/your own 
suggestion, I -would in plain English, say, that there are 
in your church, two churehes, — the High Church and 
the Low Church. And as you are understood to belong 
to the former, it is those features to which attention 
must be directed. That wing of the Protestant Episco¬ 
pal Church, is decidedly popish in its tendencies. The 
main difference, then, between these daughters and this 
wing of the mother, is this, that for several generations 
past the former have been wont to look directly to 
Christ for assistance, depending only in repentance, 
prayer, faith, and holy living; while the latter has 
waxed wanton in her feelings, and listens, with no little 
of immodesty to the glances and caresses of that licen¬ 
tious old gentleman who lives in Rome. The faces of 
the former are towards the cross of Christ, while that 
of the latter is towards the Vatican at Rome. 

Of course you will hardly expect of me, in a little 

13 * 


146 


LETTERS ON 


series of short letters like the present, to go into any¬ 
thing like proof of the tendency of this Romish wing 
of this mother church. I have not the slightest idea 
of doing so, for I could not, perhaps, make it appear 
entirely to your satisfaction without troubling you with 
another letter. But I happen to have before me a copy 
of the Louisville Journal of recent date, which contains 
a letter from Rev. W. Y. Rooker, Rector of St. Paul’s 
Church in that city, a minister of your church, on this 
subject, a part of which you will allow me to quote. 
Mr. Rooker, after stating several things that has 
occurred in the pulpits of his brethren, proceeds as 
follows: — 

A second proof. — The Rev. Mr. Hudson, present 
editor of the New York Churchman, a leading Episcopal 
High Church paper, in reviewing a book lately published, 
says: “ The author speaks of the Bible, and the Bible 
only, as the guide for young men ” — leaving them to 
interpret and judge for themselves of its meaning and 
deep mysteries. “ No wonder,” says Mr. H., “ so many 
young men, under such teaching, become practical 
infidels or careless sinners. The young man that rejects 
the authority of the church virtually rejects the Bible.” 

A third proof. — Mr. Carey, a graduate of the 
Episcopal Theological Seminary of New York, at his 
examination for orders, declared : “ That he could 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


147 


receive all the decrees of the Council of Trent, the 
anathemas only excepted. In that council, Rome made 
tradition of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures, 
yet with this avowal Bishop Onderdonk, of New York, 
ordained him. 

A fourth proof. — Bishop Meade, of Virginia, in 
calling the attention of the bishops of the church and 
others to the popish character of many of the publications 
of the General Protestant Episcopal Sunday School 
Union, quotes from one entitled: “ The Young Church¬ 
man Catechized,’’ as follows: 

Question: Which is the Catholic Church in the United 
States ? 

Answer: The Protestant Episcopal Church. Its 
surname is Protestant Episcopal, but its Christian name 
is Holy Catholic. 

Question: Is every one permitted to interpret the 
Bible according to his own opinion ? 

Answer: Certainly not. 

Question: Who then is the authorized interpreter of 
Holy Scripture ? 

Answer: The Holy Catholic Church. 

Let it be remembered, says Bishop Meade, “ That in 
a few lines most heretical doctrines may be contained. 
These books are authoritative. They stand next to the 
Prayer Book, which has the sanction of the General 


148 


LETTERS OX 


Convention. They have the sanction of all the bishops 
and a portion of the clergy and laity of the church. n 

I will not multiply examples, for I do not wish to 
occupy a larger space in your columns than I can help. 
Alas ! that they may be so readily cited and in numbers 
too. These views have led every minister that has 
adopted and fully carried them out to Rome. 

And now, Messrs. Editors, I would fain throw aside 
2ny pen, but I feel compelled to proceed. Mr. Craik 
has thought it worth his while to come out singly, and 
deny that he holds any such doctrine, &c., &c. At the 
time I made my remarks, as I have already stated, I 
had not the remotest reference to the resident clergy 
of this city; but, since the publication of Mr. Craik’s 
letter to Mr. Morton, I have deemed it worth while to 
examine his teaching on this point , and I subjoin the 
result of the examination. In a sermon preached by 
him, in Christ Church, in 1846, at the re-opening of 
the same, which sermon was published by the request 
of the vestry, he says in the appendix (where he is 
refuting Mr. Newman’s doctrine of development,) as 
follows: “ Mr. Newman opposes against the system of 
the church certain grave objections. There are certain 
very important points, says Mr. Newman, on which the 
scriptures do not inform us.” One of the points as 
stated is : Ci Whether that document is self-interpreting, 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


149 


or requires a comment, and whether any authoritative 
comment or commentator is provided.” To which 
Mr. Craik replies: “ The revelation itself made pro¬ 
vision for this and other determinations, among them, 
the authoritative comment upon the scriptures, so far as 
the terms of salvation are concerned, by the institution 
of a church” (I have italicised the words,) (page 27.) 
(On page 23,) Mr. Craik again says : “But, as Chris¬ 
tianity is both social and dogmatic, and intended for all 
ages, it must, in order to preserve unity of faith, have 
an authoritative expounder. This expounder Christianity 
provided, by the institution of the church , which, from 
the beginning, had determined the points of faith diffused 
through the scriptures, and upon which men must 
agree; while upon other points a large diversity of 
opinion is allowed. The institution of the church, as a 
society, made these doctrinal decisions necessary, for, 
by faith we are saved; and the things which are to be 
believed must be known, and to be known, they must 
be determined by a common and competent authority. 
The whole church is the only common and competent 
authority , for it represents the intelligence and the 
personal responsibility of each individual Christian” 
The italics are my own. Mr. Craik, in his introduction 
to the controversy had between himself and Mr. McGill, 
of this city, and afterwards published in pamphlet form, 


LETTERS ON 


l5o 

says (page 4,) speaking of the “ helps to reason God 
has provided ”— (after mentioning the holy scriptures 
as the principal: ) — “ But when Christ commanded 
all nations to be baptized into his kingdom, upon a 
profession of faith , he necessarily imposed upon the 
ministry of that sacrament the duty of stating the faith 
to be professed ,” &c.; and just below, speaking as to 
the unanimous opinion of the church a3 to what that 
faith is, and wherein it consists, Mr. Craik says : “ The 
voice of the church thus discriminates for each individual 
not only between truth and error, but between faith 
and opinion . The faith, that which must be believed 
by all alike, it determines absolutely .” 

“ Now, if these statements of Mr. Craik teach 
anything, they affirm (as I understand the meaning of 
language) that the church is the divinely authorized 
interpreter of the scriptures , and what men are to 
believe in order to salvation, it, the church , determines 
absolutely. This, as I understand it, is also Romanism. 
The only point of difference between Mr. C. and Rome 
is, which is the church. I appeal to the common sense 
of a discerning public if I have not fairly construed it. 
If God has appointed the church as the authorized 
interpreter of scripture, he has thereby excluded private 
judgment. When interpreted for me by divine authority 
where is the need to look beyond the interpretation ? I 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


151 


peril the salvation of my soul if I reject it. How, I 
ask, can an individual holding these views/consistently 
unite in circulating the Bible without the divinely 
authorized comment ? Is it not palpable that he must 
be faithless to his principles if he did ? Is it not made 
palpable by the fact that none who. do hold these Views 
are ever found uniting with other Protestant churches 
in the work of distributing it. It is notorious that High 
Churchmen do not support, as a body, the American Bible 
Society, whilst the Evangelical clergy, as a body, do.” 

This is intended only to give you a mere glance at 
the subject of popery. It is possible that at some 
future moment I may, at more length, trace the popish 
features of this mother church. If I should do so, I 
may call in the assistance of a weekly publication, 
which has its location in Vicksburg, called a “ Herald,” 
and which, no doubt, you see occasionally. 

For instance, if I should make known that this 
“ Herald ” — not by any means attaching its heresies 
to you, however — but if I should show that “ succes¬ 
sion” Christianity, in Mississippi, acknowledges the 
Apostolic regularity and correctness of Romanism , and 
repudiates all the evangelical churches of this country, 
except this little handful-church of succession, it would 
look quite strange in the eyes of the religious people of our 
sunny state. It would look also strange if I should show 


152 


LETTERS ON 


further that the right of private judgment' in interpret 
ing the scriptures is strongly condemned; that 44 the 
Prayer Book ” is put above and before the Bible as the 
Churchman’s creed. And it would look queer enough, too, 
if I should further show that this little church, with about 
twenty-eight or thirty preaching places in Mississippi 
while the other churches have near if not quite a thou¬ 
sand, claims to be 44 Catholic,” while the interpretation 
it gives of the term Catholic, as applied to churches, is 
44 universality , antiquity , and consent to sustain it.” 

It must be admitted that these daughters and this 
aunt have strayed a long way from the 44 mother,” 
seeing their differences are so great on many points. 
The former looks to Christ, and to Christ alone for 
spiritual help, and the Bible, and the Bible alone for 
their trust, their faith,, and their practice. But the 
“mother” teaches that we must look to a bishop, a 
mitred, silk-arrayed, and silk-decorated bishop for 
heavenly assistance ; and to the 44 prayer-book ” for 
faith and practice; Private judgment may in a very 
restricted sense be tolerated in understanding the 
prayer-book, but it is abominable heterodoxy for it to be 
used in reading and understanding the Bible. This latter 
I call popery, whether I find it in a silk gown Epis¬ 
copal, or in the dragon-colored surplice of Romanism. 
Your church is called 44 Episcopal Catholic,” and the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


153 


pope’s church is called “ Roman Catholic,” but when 
they both put the “ clergy ” or the “ priesthood ” which 
ever you choose to call it, a head of, and above Jesus 
Christ, and books written by men before the Bible, I 
call it all popery, that is, when I speak plainly and call 
things by their right names. 

Please excuse me for not tracing out the features of 
resemblance between these relations, further at this 
time. This present series of letters is a mere sketch, 
which treats the various questions introduced in the 
lightest and slightest manner possible. At a future 
time I may take up the subjects at greater length, and 
. display them more to your satisfaction . This depends, 
however, a little upon the manner in which our friends 
receive these few hints. If the intermediate church , or 
the Romish icing of your denomination, is to hold up its 
head here in the most religious and the most intel¬ 
ligent part of Christendom, and cry,., at the top of its 
voice — “ The temple of the Lord^the temple of the 
Lord, the temple of the Lord are we ! ”;##^if a bishop’s 
mitre is to’stand between us and tbie'cVoss of Christ, 
and a bishop’s <fc Apostolical hands ” intervene between 
us and the grace of God, we wish, nay, a little more, 
we intend to be present to see it done. 

Reverend Sir, 

Very Respectfully, R. A. 




LETTER XVI. 

IN REGARD TO TIIE RELIGIOUS ADVANTAGES OF SUCCESSION. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — There is an inquiry, 
my dear Bishop, in this matter, which I have had in my 
mind for some time, and which I regard as vitally 
important, that I have hitherto only hinted at, once or 
twice. I have thought it best to put it off until the 
closing letters of the series. I desire now to bring it 
forward, and present it to your candid consideration. 

It is this: As to the religious advantages to be 
gained by this doctrine of succession. A general 
view of religion , in the succession, and religion 
OUT OF IT, has hitherto, without much further inquiry, 
caused me, somehow or other, to look upon u succession ” 
as a humbug. Pardon me : if I am wrong I hope to be 
corrected. I do not wish to live (and much less do I desire 
to die,) in any important religious or theological error. 

It is admitted by all, that Jesus Christ established — 
or rather re-established upon the debris of a former 
one — a church upon earth. It is well understood, too, 
that this church was established for the religious 
advantage of mankind, and that with infinity of wisdom 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


155 


it was calculated and intended, in securing these advan¬ 
tages, to meet and harmonize with the circumstances 
and condition in which men are placed. In short, that 
among the means of grace w r hich God has provided for 
sinful men, the organized church should stand, in the 
grand galaxy, conspicuous and prominent, though by no 
means foremost. By nature, men are sadly diseased, and 
by grace the church is the grand hospital for their recovery. 

Now, the rule by which we are to examine into 
pretensions, and the utility or genuineness of means, 
recognized specially by Christ, and which commends 
itself universally to men, is this: “By their eruits 
ye shall know them.” Now, I am going, with your 
permission, my dear sir, to subject this doctrine of 
“ succession ” to the arbitrament of this grand, heaven 
born Chancellor. By this behest let it stand, or by this 
behest let it fall. 

All your succession writers and advocates agree that 
the Church of Christ is found exclusively in the suc¬ 
cession. Out of it, all is mere human association. 
Let me remind you of my remarks on this point, in my 
second letter. Most of your writers contend that there 
is, or can be, no salvation out of “the church,” 
meaning your Episcopal Church. Others allow that 
where men have no opportunity of coming into the 
church, they may possibly be saved by Christ’s extra- 


156 


LETTERS ON 


ordinary grace. Others again, still more tolerant, allow 
that God may possibly make some merciful allowance 
for the errors and prejudices of men, and that by bare 
possibility a man might be saved, because of his igno¬ 
rance, from among the “ sects ” which are found in 
Christendom. But you all contend that salvation out 
of the succession — that is out of your church — is well 
nigh impossible. In fact, the doctrine itself, in its 
mildest aspect, and for which you all contend, necessa¬ 
rily implies that all the advantages of a church are 
found and enjoyed in the succession , and there only . 

Now, let us pause a moment, and look at a few facts 
in another direction. Let us take a bird’s eye view of 
the several churches in the United States, and make a 
tabular statement of the number of their communicants. 

The latest statistics give your church in the United 
States, including ministers 111,650 

Baptists, all organizations 990,857 

Presbyterians, “ 659,258 

Methodists, “ 1,319,171 

Other Orthodox churches, 337,689 

Making a total of 3,306,975 

In this calculation it appears that your church com¬ 
prises within a fraction of one-thirtieth part of the 
Christian communion of the United States. And yet you 
are “ the church ! ” I sympathize with your modestv. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


157 


In the above calculation you will observe that I do not 
include Roman Catholics, Unitarians, or Universalists. 
I exclude them because, though I doubt not there are 
many good religious men among them, they are not 
Christian churches built upon the Apostles and Prophets, 
Jesus Christ, himself being the chief corner stone. If 
they were included in the Christian category, then you 
would fall something short of numbering one in forty. 

Your claims are too high. They cannot be met. 
And not only are they too high to be current, but they 
are too high to be fruitful; for you and I know very 
well, that there is not a man, woman or child, in all the 
length and breadth of the land, out of your pews, who 
regard, or recognize you as “ the church .” Such an 
idea, right or wrong, is universally held to be too 
ridiculous to be thought of I would respectfully recom¬ 
mend that you pause until public arbitrament in justice 
to your merits, awards to you this high and honorable 
distinction. You know it does not look quite so well 
for a person to sign his owm name with the prefix of 
‘ i Honorable, ” or the affix of “ Esquire,” as it does for 
other people to place these appendages for him. You are 
one in thirty of the Bible Church of this country, do not 
forget it, I beg of you, one in thirty of the orthodox 
body of Christ, in his communion, in this country, and 
yet you assume to yourselves to be. “ the church ! ” 


158 


LETTERS ON 


And where — be so kind as to inform me — where 
are these three millions three hundred and six thousand 
nine hundred and seventy-five other Christians ? What 
church do they belong to ? 

Dr. Hook, (before he was written to death, by 
Powell,) tells us — 44 The only ministrations to which 
he has 'promised his presence is to those of the bishop>s 
ivho are successors of the first commissioned Apostles , 
and the other clergy , acting under their sanction and 
by their authority .” 

Bishop Hobart says : 44 So that the difference between 
us and this people ( 4 the Presbyterians, Methodists, 
&c.’) as already considered, is, a ministry and no 
ministry , a church and no church .” 

Again he says : 44 Whereas the difference is, that we 
are here, and they there ; we in the church, and 

THEY OUT OF IT.” 

Oxford Tracts, No. 85, says: 44 Christ has appointed 
the church as the only way to eternal life.” 

Dr. Sherlock says: 44 Separation from the Church 
of England is a schism, and a schism is as damning a 
sin as idolatry, drunkenness, or adultery.” 

You, in your sermon say: 44 This society, (the 

succession church) must be made the depository and 
guardian of his written word.” 

Then these three and a half millions , almost, (quite 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


159 


by this time,) of professing Christians in the United 
States, are simply out of the church , without a Bible or 
a ministry, or a blessing ; and the one-thirtieth part of 
the number, embraces the Christendom of this country! 

Bishop Hobart in his letters to Dr. Mason, says : 

“ Presbyterians remain as they were at first, a com¬ 
paratively small sect , among Christians.” 

Yes, they are small, but they outnumber the suc- 
cessionists, six to one . 

In one year, 1841, or ’42, I am not certain which, 
the Methodist Episcopal Church alone, received into its 
membership one hundred and one thousand two hundred 
and forty communicants; about the whole number of 
Episcopalians in the United States at the present time. 
The annual increase of the several evangelical churches 
is greater than all the numbers ever recorded upon your 
minutes since Columbus sailed to the west. 

Now', how is this ? Your church, with the exclusive 
advantages of a ministry, with the exclusive advantages 
of the presence of Christ, with the exclusive advantages 
of the sacraments, with the exclusive advantages of 
God’s special blessings and promises, with all the 
advantages that men on earth could have ; what sort of 
show is this, you make for yourselves, when held up in 
contrast with a people without a ministry, without a 
preached gospel, without a church, without ordinances, 


160 


LETTERS ON 


uncared for by God, and left alone to grapple with sin and 
sinfulness as best they may ! Are you a thousand times 
more numerous and a thousand times more religious 
than they ? This ought to be the case, if your pretensions 
and boastings are well founded. What 1 have you all 
the religious advantages that God considered to be 
necessary or proper for the salvation of the world, and 
have we none of them ? Then you ought to have all the 
religion; or at most, if we have any , it is a miracle of 
mercy ! Give us the advantages you boast of, and we 
will organize a church which in two years, yes in two 
short years, shall so far outstrip the other churches, 
or the “ sects , :99 as you call them, that the historian 
shall not stop to count them, nor shall statistics be able 
to find them. And as for true religion, nobody shall 
dream of looking any where else for it, but in the true 
church, where the Holy Spirit and the ordinances reside. 

But instead of this, what is the fact ? Look at your 
one hundred and eleven thousand members, compared 
with very nearly, if tiot quite three and a half mil¬ 
lions ! Why either the Baptist, the Presbyterian or the 
Methodist churches could receive your church bodily, 
and it would scarcely, be considered more than a clever 
revival. 

Why, sir, only think of it, pardon me for again 
reminding you, my dear Bishop, (for in connection with 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


161 


this sermon of yours, and these letters of mine, it is a 
statistical fact of no small importance), you are only one 
in thirty of the professing Christians of this country. 
And then look at the exclusive honor and distinction 
you assume ! Why, sir, these arrogant and untimely 
pretensions are absolutely indecent; and moreover they 
violate the third verse of the twelfth chapter o£ Romans. 

But I have admitted more than I ought, perhaps, in 
regard to your church, and yet I must, with your 
permission, throw some light upon the present condition 
of it from another quarter. 

Your writers would feign make it appear, that it 
is not only the embodiment of all that is sacerdotal, 
dignified and Apostolical, but it also appears to be 
the embodiment of all that is united, harmonious and 
secure, in ecclesiastical matters. With your permis¬ 
sion, I will question this position, and proceed to show 
that your church embodies within itself the slumbering 
elements of disruption and self-destruction. You have 
in vour vitals, the smouldering embers of severance and 
disentegration, which look with fearful threatening to the 
most serious and alarming explosion. 

Other churches have frequently, (no doubt many 
times for the best,) divided, upon mere questions of 
policy, expediency, or jurisdiction ; but your internal 
threatenings are of a radical and fatal character. I 
14 


162 


LETTERS ON 


said in a former letter that the doctrine of u succession,” 
as I have several times explained, and as High Church 
men understand it, was not the doctrine of your church , 
nor of any other. Quite likely you have not been 
accustomed to hear such language as this, and it may 
startle you. Possibly, strange as it may seem, the 
question never occurred to you before. However this 
may be, I assure you, I am not writing in the dark. 
Let him who makes the affirmation prove it; not by a 
far fetched inference, but by a fact. A fundamental 
doctrine of an organized church is easily seen ; it is 
plainly and unmistakably written and can be pointed to 
in a moment. 

Still, although this is not the doctrine of your church, 
it is the favorite doctrine and warmly cherished notion 1 
of a large number of its ministry and members. While 
at the same time a portion of your ministers and 
members repudiate the notion, as a silly fable. You 
see, sir, this question is radical. It embraces the 
whole substance of your church’s vitals. You have, 
therefore, really, two churches — pardon me, if I speak 
more correctly- and say — you have two fragments of 
an ecclesiastical fragment, in one organization. 

I think, if I recollect right, I have, in some of the 
foregoing letters, cited authority against “ succession,” 
from within your church, on, perhaps, both sides of 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


163 


the Atlantic. I am very sure that I have now- 
before me, volumes of such authority, from the highest 
positions in your church, wherever it exists. But to 
be brief—(and really, I am trying to be as brief as I 
can) —and not to trouble you with much at a time on the 
subject of your ecclesiastical dangers, I will refer you to 
the following remarks, taken from a recent number of 
the Episcopal Recorder, -which I believe is a leading 
paper of the succession. The editor of that paper says : 

44 So long as two systems of theology exist amongst 
us, and those who hold them are sincere and earnest- 
minded men, there must be in fact (however the fact 
may be sedulously hidden from public view,) two parties 
in the church. In our judgment, a fair and open 
recognition of this fact is due to truth. If, indeed, one 
of these parties can manage, by calling itself 4 the 
church,’ to appropriate the funds, and thus control the 
missionaries of both, it may not be surprising that they 
should strive, as long as possible, to keep their own 
secret. They will part with so advantageous a fallacy 
at last only with a struggle, and perhaps after the 
lapse of years. But part with it they must. The real 
state of the facts cannot always be kept from the public 
eye. Those who have been the losers in this game of 
policy will find it out some day. Indeed, they are 
beginning every where to perceive it now. 4 They who 


164 


LETTERS ON 


win may laugh ’ (in their sleeves) a little longer; but 
the day is at hand when we shall- have a separate 
system of High Church and Low Church institutions 
for all the purposes of denominational action. We go 
for it now. The sooner the better. The plan which 
the minority of this committee has proposed, is the next 
thing to it. It is, perhaps, the nearest approach that 
can at present be made in Pennsylvania. It certainly 
deserves, and we doubt not will receive, the serious 
consideration of all whom it may concern. It has our 
best wishes. There needs no prophet, however, to 
predict that if the Convention does not adopt some such 
action, even the most scrupulous of those who have 
been for sometime waiting its movements will feel 
themselves at perfect liberty to act in the premises for 
themselves.” 

The muttering thunders of contention between Bible 
Christianity and succession Christianity, will speedily 
burst forth. 

My good nature forbids my closing this letter in so 
sad a manner as this. I never like to look long at a 
gloomy picture. So, for the sake of a cheerful counte¬ 
nance, which I always admire, I will change the subject 
as rapidly as possible, and give you an antidote to all 
that this prosing editor has said. 

Dr. Hook, you know, is a great High Churchman. 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


165 


I suppose he is still living ; I have not heard otherwise. 
You know he was chaplain to the Queen ; and you may 
chance to recollect, also, that he preached a celebrated 
sermon on “ Hear the Church,” before the Queen, at 
the Chapel Royal, in St. James’s palace, on the 17th 
June, 1838. Well, I am going, with your permission, 
Reverend Sir, to make an extract from this sermon. 

% Powell, in Commenting on these remarks, says that the 
Doctor has w the intolerable arrogance thus to insult 
the Christian churches in general in America.” Rut 
you know Powell is, himself, an Englishman, and does not 
know as much about “ the Christian churches in general 
in America” as we do. Rut I ought not to detain you 
here, with remarks of my own, so I will proceed at Once 
to give you the exhilirating and cheerful extract. 

“ When the United States of America were English 
colonies, the English Church was there established. At 
the revolution the state was destroyed. Monarchy has 
ceased to exist; but the church, though depressed for a 
time, remained uninjured. So that there, among the 
American republicans, under the superintendence of no 
more than sixteen bishops, you will find her sacraments 
and ordinances administered, and all her ritual and 
liturgical services celebrated, w r ith no less of piety, zeal, 
and solemnity, than here in England. There you may 
see THE CHURCH, LIKE AN OASIS IN THE DESERT, blessed 


166 


LETTERS ON 


by the dews of heaven, and shedding heavenly blessings 
around her, in a land where, because no religion is 
established, IF IT WERE NOT FOR HER, nothing 

BUT THE EXTREMES OF INFIDELITY OR FANATICISM 
WOULD PREVAIL.’’ 

Reverend Sir — excuse me, if you please — my pen 
refuses to comment. At the sight of this beautiful 
oasis in this dread and dreary desert, it remains abso¬ 
lutely aghast. And — no marvel either — the writer 
has himself caught the infection. Did you ever see 
such a desert! and did you ever see such an oasis ! 

If I should not be able to finish this letter, I know I 
will be excused; for who can write in such a desert; 
and in plain view, too, of such an oasis! 

“ If it had not been for her ! ” Bless me! 
“If it had not been for her ”•—this church, with a 
hundred thousand members — these other churches of 
three or four millions — what would become of them !!! 

But Dr. Hook’s history is slightly at fault. He does 
not remember that before the Episcopalians, or “ the 
English Church” as he calls it, came to this country 
at all, the Presbyterians, the Methodists or the Baptists, 
either one of them, had more communicants here, than 
“ the church ” of the succession ever will have for time 
to come. 

Dr. Hook may be very well acquainted with the state 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


167 


of ecclesiastical matters about St. James’s palace, but he 
is a little behind the times here. If I were acquainted with 
him, I would inform him preparatory to another sermon, 
that nine-tenths of the towns and villages, and ninety- 
nine hundredths of the intelligent people in this country, 
had never been seen by an Episcopal clergyman. I 
would inform him, that among, at least, ten millions of 
people, 'who in point of religion and intelligence, will 
compare favorably with any that Dr. Hook is accustomed 
to mingle with, not one in a hundred ever heard an 
Episcopal minister preach or witnessed his ministrations. 

Hoping, that some kind ray of light may discover to 
the Doctor some few other green spots in this great 
moral and spiritual “ desert,” and that he may be 
constrained to consent that something besides “infidelity 
or fanatacism ” may be found in this country, out of the 
pale of succession, 

I remain, Reverend Sir, 

Yours respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER XVII. 


“BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.” 

Reverend and Dear Sir: — In my last letter I 
instituted a very slight and partial inquiry into the 
supposed advantageous results of successionism, so far 
as it is seen to affect the succession and non-succession 
churches, in the relative number of their communicants 
respectively, and the result was disadvantageous to the 
succession church. It is true I found an English 
authority who represents the succession church as the 
only oasis in this great moral and spiritual desert of 
twenty millions of people. Although the author was 
somewhat faulty in his history, and from inadvertence 
or otherwise, apparently a little partial towards the 
oasis, yet he furnished some very interesting matter for 
that letter. The oasis, on further examination, was 
found to be small in comparison with the size of the 
desert, yet, perhaps the exceeding freshness and beauty 
of its verdure should, in your estimation, make up for 
its limited geographical extent. 

With your permission, sir, we will draw a little nearer 
to it in order to this; and see if your church really 
makes up in true 'piety what it lacks in numbers. Rut, 
alas, alas! I greatly fear that we are getting from bad 
to worse ! Piety ? The Lord save us for the lack of 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


169 


it!- I would fain be saved this unpleasant inquiry, but 
as I have commenced, I will, in God’s name, and with 
your permission, go on. I judge no man. To his own 
master he standeth or falleth. But I think that in all 
fairness I may, (and, with no objection on your part, 
I believe I will,) speak a few words of that which is 
notorious. 

It is notorious, that in every town and neighborhood 
in the United States, where it exists, your church, (right 
or wrong,) is ranked, in the scale of vital religion — 
of real piety, below all other churches. It is notorious 
that a large number of the members of your church 
make no personal pretensions to experimental religion. 
A very large number of them are the common, open 
participants in card-playing, drinking, horse-racing, 
betting, dancing, gambling, and Sabbath breaking. In 
fact, sir, a number of these vices, are by no means very 
uncommon in your ministry! 

Rev. Dr. Clapp, of New Orleans, in a sermon pub¬ 
lished a short time since, pays your church, as he 
supposes, a handsome compliment. He speaks in very 
eulogistic terms of her “ inimitable prayers and “ her 
venerable forms,” but her piety is not alluded to. In 
fact, sir, worship in your church consists in forms. 
One of your official tracts, “ A Candid Examination of 
the Episcopal Church,” No. 90, now before me, contains 
the following passage on page 4 : 

“ This examination I pursued to the best of my 
ability and opportunity, and the result has been a full 
and unshaken belief that the government of the church 
15 


170 


LETTERS ON 


by bishops, priests, and deacons, and the worship by 
forms, is of ancient and divine institution, and that 
every other mode is an innovation not known to the 
Apostles and their successors for many ages, but of 
recent date and fatal tendency.” 

Merciful heaven! upon what times have we fallen l 
When it is boldly published by a church, claiming too, to 
be the only true church, that any other hind of worship 
than “ by forms ” is an “ innovation ” “ not known 

to the Apostles” and “ of fatal tendency !! ” 

Here is the climax of either ignorance or insult. If 
the former, I ask, was ever ignorance so ignorant ? or 
if the latter — was ever impudence so impudent ? 

The same writer, on the fourteenth page of the same 
publication, holds the following language: — 

“ The example of Christ furnishes a strong argument 
in favor of forms. . . . From the time of Christ and 
his Apostles, forms , in public worship, were universal 
in the church until the sixteenth century, and the same 
arguments are to be produced in their favor from 
ecclesiastical history, as in regard to episcopacy.” 

“ Until the sixteenth century! ” And what happened 
then ? Ah, that terrible sixteenth century ! And what 
difficulty did “ forms ” encounter then ? Why the God 
of reform inspired the heart and nerved the arm of the 
immortal Luther, who snatched the Bible from its iron 
fastenings, where it had been literally chained for ages, 
and despite of the church, the emperor, and their slaves, 
held it up and open before the gaze of an injured and a 
priest-ridden people, until they read the warnings, from 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


171 


this same Saviour whom this pitiful writer so ignorantly 
insults, of those religionists who, “ having the form of 
godliness deny the power.” He showed them the 
preachings of that Saviour, when he said: “ Except 
your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of 
the Scribes and Pharisees, (whose worship was “ by 
forms,”) ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of 
heaven.” The example of Christ in favor of forms , 
indeed ! What an ecclesiastical mountebank! 

But ignoramus as he is, he tells one truth, certainly. 
“ The same arguments are to be produced in their 
favor, from ecclesiastical history, as in regard to the 
episcopacy; ” that is, the succession. Yes, the very 
same. The “ argument ” that will prove one will prove 
the other. 

Thus, sir, does your church publish, under its own 
sign-manual, that it is a church of “ forms ,” and that 
its religion is a religion of “forms” This, sir, is more 
than I have said before, and more than I will say again, 
unless (which Grod forbid) it degenerates much below the 
point it now occupies. Succession, with its concomitant 
and attendant disadvantages, has led your church far 
into formalism, until vices and spiritual negligence have 
been let in, with such fearful array, that, I acknow¬ 
ledge, it is not easy to distinguish between your piety 
and your “forms” 

And I charge all this to your doctrine of succession. 
For where is the necessity of faith and personal holiness , 
if a tactual connection, in baptisms, confirmations, &c., 
of a succession bishop, through whom may be received 


172 


LETTERS ON 


the virtue of Christ’s atonement, is the leading feature of 
the plan of salvation ? You say the Christian receives 
this virtue from the ministering priest or bishop through 
the succession. All other Christians say that this virtue 
is received directly from Christ. 

At the same time that I speak of these things, sir, it 
affords me unspeakable pleasure to say, that, on the 
other hand, I have uniformly found in all your churches, 
persons of substantial morals and fair piety, who present 
a cheering contrast to the foregoing gloomy picture. 
Your church, although low in piety, is by no means 
without true religion. You have many noble examples 
of piety. Would to God you had a thousand fold more. 
But the truth must be hinted at, at least; the occasion 
justifies it. 

While other ministers teach the people to look to 
Christ directly, and to him alone for salvation, you teach 
them — following this abominable succession doctrine — 
to look to “ the bishop,” to “ the clergy,” and to “ the 
church,” for you say the virtue of Christ’s atonement 
comes down tactually through this connection. Hence, 
the looseness, the immorality, the utter worldliness 
uniformly found in your church. 

Now, sir, although in the nature of the case I cannot 
bring the proof of what I say to every man, yet I am 
not, on that account, to be questioned; for I can bring 
every man to the proof. Let any man look around his 
own town or his own neighborhood, where your members 
are to be found, and if he be candid and fair, he will be 
constrained to say that, whatever he may suppose the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


173 


state of the case to be in other places, as to that place 
the picture is by no means overdrawn. 

It is no disparagement to the general character of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, to say that, as a .general 
thing, men of the world do not hesitate or scruple to 
invite its members to share with them in games, drinking, 
betting, dancing, theatre-going, &c., with an honest 
expectation that the invitation will be favorably received, 
and if convenient, complied with. Your ministry does 
not, by any means, belong to the fox hunting, wine 
drinking and gaming school that embraces a goodly 
portion of the clergy of the Church of England. You 
are far above it in morals and religion. But still, it is 
well known, that, as a general thing, men do not look into 
your pulpits for fervent exhortations to piety, or bold 
denunciations against sin. Your preaching is smooth, 
popular, and moral. The subject matter of it is not, (or 
is but very seldom,) “ the gospel ,” as the Master hath 
taught us. Your preaching is about “ the church,” 
“ the church,” “ the church,” “ succession,” “ succes¬ 
sion.” You can tell us many, many things, about “ a 
valid ministry,” about “true bishops,” “ecclesiastical 
authoritv,” and “ church, church,” but who ever heard 
you warn sinners, denounce sin, or entreat men to be 
reconciled to God through Jesus Christ? No one looks 
for the preaching of the gospel truly in your pulpits. On 
the contrary, all that is expected is a smooth lecture on 
morals, or a eulogy on “ the church ” and “ her bishops.” 
We can learn in your churches that other churches are 
no churches, that they have no ministry, no ordinances, 


174 


LETTERS ON 


no sacraments, no promises from Christ; that the Holy 
Ghost religion they profess and teach, is fanaticism, and 
that their revivals are unnecessary and worthless. But 
when do we hear that Christ died for sinners, or that 
he may be sought and found in the conversion of the 
soul. Warm, sincere, fervent exhortations to immediate 
practical holiness, and humble trust in the mercy and 
goodness of God, would sound strange from your pulpits. 
When was the warm gushing sigh of fresh conversion 
heard at your altars, or in your pews ? Plow many 
conversions have you had the past year in Jackson? 
How many in Vicksburg ? in Natchez ? in Columbus ? 
in Yazoo City ? It is an easier thing to talk about 
“ baptismal regeneration,” than to preach Jesus Christ 
and him crucified to sinners, and to pray and struggle 
with them for their souls. My dear sir, you and I are 
both ministers of the gospel, and we may freely and 
plainly talk together of these things. 

This degenerate condition of your church, I am well 
aware, is deplored deeply by many of your preachers 
and people. And without the slightest appearance of 
flattery, I feel free to say, that no man labors with 
more zeal, assiduity, and perseverance, to correct these 
evils than yourself. Still, these facts are true. 

As I have suffered myself to be drawn into a strain 
of great plainness in this letter, allow me to pursue the 
theme a step further. It may result in our mutual 
edification. Your ministry (so you say) has all the advan¬ 
tages of the presence and comfort of the Holy Ghost, and 
the only authority to preach. Of course then, that holy 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


175 


zeal which stimulates to labor, sacrifice and cross-bearing, 
in the work of the Master, is found only among your 
ministers ! Would it, dear sir, be tolerated in you or I, 
to insult the common sense and every day observations 
of this community by such a suggestion ? Every body 
knows as well as you and I know, that toil, sacrifice, 
labor and privation is about as scarce in your ministry as 
it is in an opulent drawing room. You go, when the 
weather is fine, and where the streets are paved. You 
seek for towns and wealth., and salaries; not for the poor 
and the needy. 

Not long ago we had the Episcopal visitations, in this 
country, of the venerable Bishop Andrew, from Georgia. 
And what marked his way ? Easy traveling and rich 
dinners ? Not exactly. Though aged and feeble, he 
traveled, in bad weather and discomfort, to meet his 
Conferences, and preached as he went. And instead of 
spending the Sabbath afternoon upon sofas with wine 
and company, he never failed to find a congregation of 
negroes, and preach to them. I do not know how often 
your bishops preach to the negroes, for I never heard 
the subject mentioned. 

You will pardon me for calling your attention to such 
men as Chamberlin, Butler and Strattan, among the 
Presbyterians ; Cooper, Hallow ay and Lattimer among 
the Baptists; Winans, Lane, and Peter James, among 
the Methodists ; and hundreds of others, and then, 
do not be offended if I ask you to point me to such 
examples of toil, zeal and sacrifice in your church. Why, 
sir, your church, the only church which is not bankrupt 


176 


LETTERS ON 


in advantages, which is so rich in Apostolical wealth., and 
endowed with heaven’s own affluence, is as barren of such 
a ministry as this, as the ice-bergs of the poles. Where 
and how did Hinton and Steele die ? They died of yellow 
fever, in New Orleans, preaching to the sick and the 
dying, where an Episcopalian minister was not to be found. 

The gospel is required to be preached to “ the poor.” 
How is this command understood ? Common fame replies, 
that you, sir, understand it to mean, that the minister 
shall seek the acquaintance, and become familiar in the 
drawing-rooms of the wealthy, and strive to proselyte, 
here and there, a clever Presbyterian, a Baptist or a 
Methodist, to the faith of the church and the doctrine of 
succession! While other ministers are preaching the 
gospel, you are preaching the church. While other 
ministers are toiling to instruct the ignorant, to subdue 
the vicious, to spread the Bible, to preach and teach reli¬ 
gion every where, your ministers are oftentimes playing 
chess, superintending the ornamenting of a church, or 
inventing and teaching new and more fashionable modes 
of being pious. 

Is it not most remarkable, that while this unauthorized 
and unsanctified ministry, with no spiritual impetus or 
influence or authority, should be seen laboring, toiling, 
year after year, all over our own country, in all its 
towns, cities, and neighborhoods, among the poor, and 
among the rich, and in every country upon earth, 
and in every island of every sea, to promote piety, to 
spread a knowledge of the scriptures, to advance morals 
and good order — is it not remarkable, I say, that 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION’. 


177 


■while these men are doing this, that the only true 
ministers of the gospel in this country, are found, one or 
two, here and there, in a few T easy and wealthy positions, 
preaching a few smooth things, occasionally, on Sabbath 
morning, (if the weather is fine,) about the church, the 
bishops, and the succession ? Indeed, there must fie 
something wrong about it. 

Why, look, sir, at the tiventy-seven thousand jive 
hundred and seventy ministers, in the vineyard of the 
Lord in this country, laboring like men of industry and 
perseverance, for the salvation of souls; and then look 
at your sixteen hundred and jifty ministers, and their 
easy and pleasant employment! The contrast is won¬ 
derful, seeing the infinite advantages of the latter over 
the former. Is it, or can it be true, that such advan¬ 
tages exist ? True or false, its truth is not believed or 
recognized by a man or woman — no, not by one in all 
this land, out of your own pews. It is true, beyond 
question , that in the United States twenty millions of 
people, recognize and believe in the legality, validity, 
and divine authority of these twenty-seven thousand 
five hundred and seventy ministers, whom you affect to 
repudiate. And it is also true, that only a part of 
vour church, say one-half—fifty thousand, perhaps — 
in all this land, believe in the truth of these haughty 
pretensions. 

Do you expect, with fifty or seventy-five thousand to 
change the opinions of these teeming millions ? You 
have been trying for almost sixty-three years, and what 
progress have you made ? The doctrine is rapidly losing 


178 


LETTERS ON 


ground in your own church , and is not listened to out of 
it. Now, my dear sir, how is it, I again ask, how is it, 
that this is the condition of your church, and this the 
contrast she bears to other churches, when you have all 
the ministry, all the ordinances, all the sacraments, 
all the heaven born and heaven gifted advantages that 
belong to the very institution of a church of God ? I ask 
you sir, how is it ? Can any man explain it ? I have 
never known an acceptable explanation to be given. 

There are, my dear Bishop, many additional reasons, 
why I think, there is something wrong in these high and 
exclusive pretensions about “ succession,” put forth by 
yourself and others, in favor of your church. There 
must be a joint amiss, or a screw loose, in the thing, 
somewhere, of this you may be sure. 

Look at the continuance of gracious revivals of religion 
in other churches, look at the fervor, and zeal and self- 
sacrificing character of their ministers. Look at the 
substantial piety found among their members, wide spread 
over the land, loot at their strict and almost uniform 
conformity to the gospel, look at their holy ministry and 
their solemn attention to the ordinances of the church 
of Christ, look at their missionaries all over the world, 
look at the millions of money and millions of time they 
spend in the work of the gospel, look at the floods of 
Bibles they are literally strewing over the earth, look at 
their holy and hoary professions of piety, and at the 
many, many, glorious triumphs in death, which they 
superinduce. Look, my dear sir, at all these things, and 
then will you undertake to tell me that God is opposed 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


179 


to all this ! that it has not the sanction of heaven, that 
it is all heresy, out of the church, anti-apostolical, and 
merely human ? You tell me that all this goes for 
naught, because it lacks that little tiny thing you call 
“ succession,’’ that “ fable,” as Wesley called it, a 
thing not in the Bible , a thing which no Christian 
church in the wide world ever adopted as a tenet; and 
a thing in the support of which, no talent has ever been 
able to present a respectable argument! You tell me 
all this in hopes of palming it on my feeble credulity ! 
No, sir, you must go with this unlikely story to children ; 
or to those who are interested; or to those whose judg¬ 
ments are warped, and whose prejudices are enlisted, 
if you hope to gain a listening ear. 

You must change the aspect of the world, before 
you can get many to listen to this story of u succession,” 
which the venerable and very learned Dr. Clarke calls 
“ a silly fable , invented by ecclesiastical tyrants , and 
supported by cleircal coxcombs .” The great and dis¬ 
tinguished Calvin says of this dogma, which is also a 
figment of Rome, that it is “ a thing utterly without 
foundation ,” and the polished and pious Melancthon 
declares, with emphasis, that u it ought of necessity to 
be forsaken .” These, you will admit, are statements 
from high authority. 

Look over the world, my dear sir, and see the almost 
countless multitudes of Christians, and mark their holy 
lives and deeds, who disregard and disbelieve this trifling 
affair; and when you have done this, then look away 
and see the immensely large, the great and mighty 


180 


LETTERS ON 


representation these persons have in heaven, among the 
spirits of just men made perfect; and the millions more 
who are on their way, and then, if perchance you should 
turn your look upon your own little church, and view 
the contrast, would not the exclamation be involuntary : 
“By their fruits ye shall know them.’’ “Not 
every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord (or succession, 
succession), shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but 
he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” 

The following is the way, sir, by which I reason on 
this subject. I mingle with the Methodist, and Pres¬ 
byterian, and Baptist churches, in the most gracious 
and holy revivals of religion that the world ever looked 
upon since the day of Pentecost. I mingle among the 
members of these churches, and I find them, for the 
most part, to be religious. They pray in their families 
night and morning. There are some melancholy excep¬ 
tions, it is true, but the mass of them eschew all the 
popular vices of the day. They are Bible men, and 
keep holy the Sabbath day. Their ministers are men 
of God — holy, temperate, just. With a zeal which 
they have inherited from the Apostles, they denounce 
sin, and declare the whole counsel of God. The con¬ 
versions which occur annually in these churches, are 
counted by thousands and tens of thousands. 

And now, amidst this teeming multitude of Christians 
— this great army of the Lord of hosts —-where is your 
church ? I would not despise the day of small things, 
and count you as nothing; but seeing you boast your¬ 
selves to be the exclusive heritage of God, the temple 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


181 


of the Lord, I can but ask myself, where is your boasted 
church, in all this great vineyard of the Lord ? Sir, it 
is almost lost amidst the thronging multitude of God’s 
people. And although in the best of these churches, 
(the Lord knows, in too many instances,) their piety 
and morals is not wfliat it ought to be, and their occa¬ 
sional immoralities are to be deplored, yet none can fail 
to see which is the rule, and which is the exception. 
And when we turn to your church — the church with 
letters patent from the court of heayen — is it unfair or 
impertinent to ask, whether it is, or is not true, that th& 
rule is the exception , and the exception the rule f 

Whatever, therefore, there may be of virtue or 
advantage in this strange unmeaning thing you call 
“ succession,” (judging the tree from the fruit which 
it produces,) you are heartily welcome to. Your 
church appears to be bound by it, with a triple 
fettering—in influence, in morals, and in religion. 
And as a well-wisher of religion, I would as much 
dislike to see these manacles upon the ancles of other 
churches as I regret to see them upon yours. 

“ The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.” 
Come, then, my dear brother, and join the hosts of the 
Lord in trampling burdensome forms under foot, and in 
propagating a succession of faith and truth. 

Reverend Sir, 

Yours respectfully, 


R. A. 


LETTER XVIII. 


IN CONCLUSION. 

Reverend and Dear Sir : — I believe the wish has 
been frequently expressed by yourself and other clergy¬ 
men of your denomination, that the Methodists would 
come back and join you, as I remarked in a former letter. 
You regard them, I believe, as a revolt or secession 
from the true church. The difficulty w T ith the Metho¬ 
dists, in your mind, I suppose, is, that they have no 
ministry, and consequently, no church, and therefore, 
no spiritual advantages of any kind. This would 
certainly be an unspeakable misfortune, if it was true. 

We must, of course, understand this pious wish as 
extending also to Baptists and Presbyterians, for their 
spiritual difficulties and misfortunes are the same with 
the Methodists, according to your notion; that is, they 
labor under the same disabilities, the lack of a ministry, 
sacraments, ordinances, the presence of Christ, &c. 
These churches not only labor under great disadvantages, 
but they are all destined, pell mell, to endless ruin. 

Let us see, sir, what your folks think and say about 
us. Dr. Dodwell says, “ None but the bishop can unite 
us to the Father and the Son” And again: “ It is 
one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition 
of the damned, that they are 4 banished from the 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


183 


presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.’ 
The same is their condition also who are disunited from 
Christ by being disunited from his visible represen¬ 
tative” — the bishop. 

Oxford tract, No. 35, says: “ Christ has appointed 
the church as the only way to eternal life” 

Dr. Hook says : “ The only ministrations to which he 
has promised his presence, is to those of the bishops , 
who are successors of the first commissioned Apostles, 
and the other clergy acting under their sanction, and by 
their authority.” 

Dr. Sherlock says: “ Whoever separates himself 
from the Church of England, cuts himself off from the 
Catholic Church, and puts himself out of u state of 
salvation” 

Bishop Onderdonk, of New York, says : “ None but 
the bishops Can unite us to the Father, in the way of 
Christ’s appointment.” 

Bishop M’Coskry says: “ It is only through this 
ministry that pardon and acceptance with God can be 
made known.” 

Bishop Hobart says: “ Whoever was not in com¬ 
munion with the bishop, was thereby cut off from 
communion from Christ. ’’ 

I am somehow forcibly reminded — and I hope you 
will pardon me for mentioning it, for I mean no disrespect 
to the venerable personages whom I have just quoted — 
I am forcibly reminded that Tetzel used oftentimes to 
say, “ If you do not secure an indulgence you will 
surely be damned. None but the bishop can save you.” 


184 


LETTERS OX 


I beg of you not to suppose that I have placed Tetzel 
in the same category with your bishops. I found him 
there ; and have only alluded to what I saw. If your 
bishops and Tractarians have sought and found the 
company of John Tetzel, surely you will not blame me 
for mentioning it. 

It seems, according to your scheme, that the cove¬ 
nanted mercies of God are clear gone from our churches. 
The puny efforts of those persons who suppose themselves 
to be ministers of Jesus Christ are, then, put forth under 
a mountain of difficulties, which would be enough to 
outweigh the world. And before your ministers, the 
work of evangelization is clear, open, and easy. But 
there is something about this after all, that I can 
scarcely get into my opaque comprehension. Excuse 
my dullness; but here is the mystery—I will illustrate it. 

A short time since the Baptists held a meeting in 
your city, Jackson, which was protracted for a week 
or two, under the superintending ministry of a young 
clergyman, at which there were more persons converted, 
and joined themselves in communion with that church, 
than, in all likelihood, you ever saw taken into your 
church in all your life, although you were, no doubt, 
a clergyman before this young minister was born. 

And subsequently to this again, in the same city, 
another meeting was held and protracted a number of 
days by the Methodists; under the superintending 
ministry of a young man also. Now, neither of these 
young ministers make any pretensions to bishopricks or 
any thing of that sort, they are merely plain, unassum- 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


185 


ing, zealous ministers, and Christian gentlemen. But as 
I was saying, at this Methodist meeting, there were 
greater numbers converted and joined their communion, 
than have been received into your church, in all your 
diocess, (which I believe embraces the entire State of 
Mississippi,) since you have had charge of it. 

What has been done, in the same time, in the other 
churches in Jackson, I have not been specifically 
informed. I presume, however, although these little 
revivals are but common occurrences — I presume that 
in the last few months, there have been more conver¬ 
sions in the town of Jackson, or city, if you please, than 
there ever were in your church, in the State of Missis¬ 
sippi, since the territory was purchased from the State 
of Georgia. 

Now, pardon me — I cannot understand how it is, 
that these unlicensed ministers, with mountains of 
difficulties resting upon them, get along as they do; 
and how it is that so many persons (comparatively, I 
mean, for I think the best of them are doing but little) 
are converted under their ministry. 

And furthermore, it seems to me that you pay your 
clergymen, and yourself too, but a poor compliment. 
You are the endowed of heaven — you work with the 
implements of Almighty grace — you go to war with 
the Saviour at your side, and with the sword of 
Almighty protection and holy conquest held before you. 
Jesus Christ is with you, and holds the blood-stained 
banner of certain victory over you — the rattling 
chariot wheels of succession bear you onward, and the 
16 


186 


LETTERS OX 


victorious shouts of “ succession ! ” “ succession ! ” in 
deafening acclamations fill the air around you, cheering 
the faithful with joy, and chilling the enemy with dismay. 
Where are the sinners that can stand before such a 
power ? Surely the victories of Gideon will be re¬ 
enacted here, and speedily ! But alas ! alas ! the 
moment the enemy appears, though away in the dis¬ 
tance, the chariot is still—the banner trails — the 
sword falls harmless to the ground, and nothing is heard 
but a faint and feeble whisper of “ succession” — 
“ succession! ” and the enemy walks in proud triumph 
over the field and says — “ where is the promise of his 
coming ? ” And while, 

“ He who fights and runs away, 

[That he] may live to fight another day,” 

departs, another soldiery appears, and casts its eye at 
the same common enemy. But here are no imperial 
trappings. No mitred leader prances his neighing war- 
horse at the head of this army, or reclines upon episcopal 
cushions in its rear. David said, “ I cannot go with 
these things. Leave me alone with God. And in the 
name of the Lord of hosts, this uncircumcised Philistine 
shall not stand.” And with the smooth stones and 
sling of faith, and an arm moved by the promises of 
God made to him , he went forth to victory as certain 
as were those promises. 

And in this way the ministers of the Lord Jesus 
Christ go forth in the work of their Master. You say 
they are under a mountain, and that the rocks of ever¬ 
lasting perdition weigh down their heads; in this you 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


are mistaken; they feel that they are on the top of the 
mountain — that they occupy the very vantage ground 
they desire ; and we know that the slain of the Lord lie 
thick around them. 

Now, the conclusion of these plain, sober, stubborn, 
truths is this: either your clergymen are the poorest, 
feeblest of all the inhabitants of Lilli put, and those 
other gentlemen, who call themselves clergymen, are the 
veriest giants and Samsons in the camp of Dan, or this 
succession doctrine is untrue. I believe the latter — 
because I believe, that your ministers are men—men 
of valor — men fit for the field —- men who are able to 
go forth and do as much as any men our country may 
boast of. I believe they have talent — I believe they 
have also, for the most part, a zeal of God — I believe 
they have ability to go out and measure arms with the 
best and tallest men we have, successfully. It is not 
ability they lack, it is opportunity . I place a much 
higher estimate upon these men than you appear to 
do, though they are of the succession party. The 
difficulty with them is, that you keep them fettered, 
and bound, and cramped, and hampered, and shackled, 
and entangled, and discouraged with this meaningless 
threadbare, fable of “ succession.” How can a ministry 
do any thing when they are required to look for direc¬ 
tion, to a mitered bishop, instead of a crowned Saviour ? 
Give your ministers a chance ; take off this heavy, 
burdensome armor. David could not work in it, neither 
can they. Let them stand out upon an equal footing, 
and they need no guarantee that they will wield the 


LETTEK3 03T 


gospel sword as faithfully and as fruitfully as others. 
And, moreover, your ministry ought to come into the 
field and labor, I mean, so to labor that their works 
may appear, the Lord requires it. The field is white 
to the harvest, and the laborers are few. Sin is 
stalking abroad around us, and sinners are dying daily. 
You have abundant means, but you do nothing, or next 
to nothing. Your achievements can be housed away in 
a nut-shell. If the pew holders, and outsiders of your 
church, who make no profession of religion, were 
deducted from your members, the remainder would be 
a mere handful. It is easy to see that your ministry is 
doing almost nothing for the Lord. 

You want the other churches, as I was saying a 
moment ago, to come and join you. You want these 
three and a half millions to join your one hundred 
thousand. This would be desirable on the part of the 
succession, no doubt, but the more you entreat, the 
more they ivont come. 

It is said that once upon a time, a juror who had been 
in the court-room all night, on a “hung jury” was 
asked the cause by a friend. “ Why,” said he, “ nobody 
could make a verdict with such men; they are eleven 
of the most obstinate men I ever saw.” 

I do not mean that the inference shall be drawn 
from this anecdote that the number of your members, 
among other Christians in this country, is one to eleven ; 
for you will please to bear in mind, that outsiders and 
all counted, you are only one in thirty. 

You wish other churches to join you? For what 


A PO STO LiC A L S EC C E S SI02s T . 


189 


purpose ? If such a thing were practicable, I know not 
which would suffer the greatest disaster in its accomplish¬ 
ment, your church or Christianity. The former would 
utterly lose, its identity in the teeming mass and 
multitude around it. This, however, would not be so 
calamitous to the world, as that which might befall the 
latter. What would become of Christianity ? 

Would you, sir, -would any man of philanthropy and 
good feeling, reduce the standard of piety among the 
professing Christians in this country, to that which obtains 
in the Protestant Episcopal Church? I am persuaded, 
sir, that you could not have the heart to do it, nor to 
place upon the hands of other ministers the same shackles 
and disabilities which encumber you. If the amalga¬ 
mated church should be required to conform to your 
customs and usages, and submit to your privations and 
disabilities, the consequence would be disastrous indeed. 
Speedily the church would be reduced to, perhaps, one- 
tenth its present numbers Nine-tenths, nay, double or 
treble that number of the preaching places which now 
exist over the land, would be discontinued; almost all 
the millions of children now in Sabbath Schools through¬ 
out the country would be turned loose to play; prayer 
meetings would well nigh cease; class and experience 
meetings would be discontinued ; the church would lose 
all of its aggressive and most of its dissuasive character; 
revivals, conversions, protracted meetings wmuld no 
longer be heard of; and the whole system would at one 
awful depression sink into a cold and lifeless “ worship 
by forms.” A. national calamity greater than this 


190 


LETTERS OX 


could scarcely be imagined. And, my dear sir, what 
would be the condition of-our pulpits ? Why, sir, if I 
thought it probable you would succeed in bringing about 
this accession is your church and usages, I would pray 
you to desist. What would a zealous revivalist do in 
one of your pulpits ? Before he would go there, you 
would put on him that coat of mail you call “ succession,” 
and then he would very soon cease to be a revivalist. 

Who would fear an enemy who was hampered with 
the “ ball and chain” of the convict ? And what care 
the sinners of this day for the ministry that prophesies 
smooth things ? An answer to these questions may be 
had by any one who will open his eyes and look out 
upon the world around him. The minister of }mur 
church delivers, in lieu of a sermon, a smooth though 
well written lecture on morals, and the consequence is 
the church never witnesses a conversion. But the man 
of zeal, with an awakened sense of the dangers which 
sinners are in, and with a lively conviction of the 
readiness of Christ to receive and save the returning 

o 

prodigal, tells them of the sufferings of Christ, and of 
their interest in his blood, tells them of the monstrous 
sinfulness of sin, and points them to an inviting Saviour, 
and conversions follow. 

Your doctrine of succession not only cripples your 
church, and keeps her away in the rear of all other 
Christians, in piety, in zeal and in influence — it not 
only leads you away from Christ, but it leads you 
towards Rome! The rationale of this doctrine can only 
be made out upon the principle of church infallibility . 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


191 


And this is Romanism. Look at your Oxford Tractarians, 
they are full two-thirds of the way to the Pope. The 
infallibility of the church, which alone can render your 
doctrine consistent with itself, addled the brain of the 
pious and conscientious Connelly, and took him to 
Rome. And when aroused to a sense of truth by the 
wickedness of her abominations he returned. The same 
cause has now led off one of your distinguished bishops, 
and he has gone to Rome also. And in England they 
are going by hundreds. These are no strange things, 
the wonder is, that more do not go. 

It is a fixed and well settled fact, that the world 
regards you as the intermediate church, between 
Protestantism and Romanism. This is the place you 
occupyYour position is such that your face is towards 
Rome. You are the hope of Popery in this country. 
Romanism looks to you, but expects nothing from other 
churches, except the keen and fatal edge of the battle- 
axe of truth. 

Seeing then, that this fable of succession is not found 
in the Bible, is not found in the principles of Christianity, 
is repudiated by hundreds of the wisest and best men 
that ever lived and wrote, seeing that it is inconsistent 
in itself and leads to the most monstrous absurdities, 
that it was never adopted by any true church on the face 
of the earth, that it is intolerant and tyrannical in its 
character, and leads to pride and ecclesiastical folly; 
seeing that it gains no ground in the world, but is 
repudiated by almost the entire mass of the people, that 
it cripples, enervates and prostrates your ministry and 


192 LITTERS. 

makes your church a mere formalism, and its religion a 
mere fancy religion — nay, more: seeing that it is 
barren of advantage, barren of achievements, and 
almost barren of piety and of Apostolical fruit and holy 
living ; and finally, seeing that its face is Homeward , 
and its tendency to bring Christianity back to the 
corruptions from which it escaped in the sixteenth 
century — and then seeing that it has nothing, yea, 
nothing, to countervail all this, or to set over against 
one single item, in a catalogue of ills and errors that 
might be almost indefinitely extended, will you not, I 
ask you as a brother, will you not drop it and come 
back to a purer and truer faith among a more genial 
and useful ministry, where you may yet do much good ? 
Will you not expel from your church this chilling, 
enfeebling hinderance to evangelical piety, cast these 
worse than useless shackles away, and come into the 
field equipped, not with the “ ball and chain ” of suc¬ 
cession, but with the implements of war ; and stand 
side by side with your brethren in doing battle for God. 
You have much means, why not use them ? Think of 
these things, my dear Bishop, pray over them, and may 
God direct your mind, and induct you into all truth, 
for your good and his glory. 

Reverend Sir, 

I remain, very respectfully, 


R. A. 


BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE. 

A PLAIN SYSTEM 

OF 



By J. W. BRIGHT, M.D. 


This work embraces all the diseases of Men, Women, and Children, and a 
plain system of MIDWIFERY; and contains the experience of the Author, in 
more than thirty years extensive practice of Medicine, and is the only work now 
before the public which contains all the New and Approved Remedies, found in 
the standard works an! medical periodicals in Europe and America, together 
with the experience and approved practice of the best anthors, upon which the 
successful treatment of the present forms of disease so much depends. It is the 
only work now before the public, containing a full description of the new, as well 
as the old diseases of the United States. The Symptoms of each disease, in all 
its stages, are so minutely described, and the directions for giving and working 
off the medicines are so plain, that no one can fail to follow them; the remedies 
all being put down in plain English, in their appropriate places. It also contains 
a Family Materia Medico, with Receipts for preparing all the Family Medicines 
in common use, with directions how to use them, and about thirty plates, mostly 
of medicinal plants, with their description, medical properties, and uses. 
Recipes for preparing Tooth Powders, Cologne Waters, and Medicines for 
Cleansing and Beautifying the Skin, and many other recipes, useful to Farmers 
and Mechanics : recipes for preparing and using the remedies for the cure of the 
Poisons of Arsenic, Copper, Lead. Mercury, Opium, Morphine, Gallic and 
Prussic Acids ; also, directions for preparing a variety of Diet for the Sick The 
work is got up in the most fashionable style, with marble edges, and bound in fine 
leather, with spring back, especially for the use of families. The whole is 
contained in 941 royal octavo pages, and will be delivered to subscribers at Five 
Dollars per copy. 

Recommendations from the Medical Faculty of the University 

of Louisville. 

Louisville. August, 1847. 

Dear Sir—Ilaving bestowed on an attentive examination of your “FAMILY PRAC¬ 
TICE” all the leisure I can command, I am of the opinion that, with the addition of the 
word well, which I shall take the liberty of making, I cannot better characterize it than 
you yourself have dene, in your very modest and appropriate title-page, “A Plain System 
of Medical Practice, well adapted to the use of Families.” 

The work appears to me to be thus adapted, for the following reasons 

1. The matter it contains is sound and judicious, and sufficiently full and diversified for 
all the cases of disease in which families themselves should attempt to employ it. W hen 
more is needed, recourse should be had to professional aid. 

2 The descriptions of diseases are generally correct, and their changes and Siages well 
marked ; and the style of the work is so simple and perspicuous, that no one at all 
aenuainted with the English composition can misapprehend its meaning. 

;] The compass of the work, embracing as it does every form of disease which an 
American Physician, in full practice, can expect to encounter in a lifetime, is sufficiently 

m \Vishing ic ? therefore, the reception and circulation, to which it appears to me to be 
entitled, I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, CALDWELL M D 

Professor >f the Institutes of Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence. 

P 8 Were it not that comf arisons are apt to be held exceptionable, I would not 
hesitate to say, that I consider your “ Family Practice” the most valuable work of the 

sort of which I have any knowledge. ^ 









BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE- 


I have examined Dr. Bright’s “ FAMILY PRACTICE,” and feel assured that it is, on the 
whole, well adapted to the purpose for which it is written. I think the work is calculated 
to be eminently useful S. D. GROSS, M. D., Professor of Surgery. 

August, 1847. 


I concur in the estimate expressed above by Dr. Gross. 

H. MILLER, M. D., 

Professor of Obstetrics and Diseases of Women and Children. 


I have examined “BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE” with some care, and find that it 
is plainly written, and contains much that is valuable. I believe the work is calculated to 
do much good. J. COBB, M. D., Professor of Anatomy. 


I have examined Dr. Bright’s “ FAMILY PRACTICE,” and find it what it purports 
to be—a plain system of Medical Practice—which I can conscientiously recommend to 
families. L. P. YANDELL, M. D., Professor of Physiology. 


From Practising Physicians in Louisville. 

I have examined with care Dr. Bright’s “FAMILY PRACTICE,” and find it a valuable 
work, well suited to the use of Planters and Families. It is plain and comprehensive, and 
the treatment conformable to the latest and most approved practice, and it affoi’ds me 
much pleasure to recommend it to the public. J. C. GUNN, M. D. 


I have examined “BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE.” The work is not only the result 
of long experience, but a very judicious selection of the latest and most approved Medical 
authors, and will, no doubt, be of great service to families. W C. GALT, M. D. 


I have examined “BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE,” and do most unhesitatingly 
recommend it as a plain, practical work—useful to families. C. PIRTLE, M. D. 


I have examined “BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE,” and take great pleasure in 
recommending it as a valuable work, suitable to the use of Families. Having practised 
Medicine fifteen years in Mississippi and Louisiana, I view this work as better adapted to 
the diseases of that region than any work of the kind I have ever seen. 

RICHARD ANGEL, M. D. 


We have examined Dr. Bright’s “FAMILY PRACTICE,” and feel no hesitation in 
recommending it to the public, as a book containing a variety of useful and valuable 
information. It is entirely practical in its designs; all technicalities are avoided, so as 
to render the author’s meaning clear and plain to the unprofessional reader, for whom it 
is more particularly intended than for the profession, though the latter, and particularly 
the medical student, might increase his store of practical knowledge by a careful perusal 
of its pages. Dr. Bright’s instruments for the application of caustic to the mouth of the 
utei-us are ingenious, and no doubt will save the practitioner much trouble, and the 
patient a great deal of unnecessai-y pain. U. E. EWING. M. D. 

Louisville, June, 1S47. W. T. II. WINLOCK, M.D. 

I have examined “ BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE,” and find in it plain and imporant 
practical principles in medicine, well adapted to the use of families. 

WM. A. McDOWELL, M. D. 

I have examined “ BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE,” and take pleasure in recommend 
ing it to all persons as a valuable work—in particular to families in the country. 

Louisville, June, 1847 J. W. KNIGHT, M. D. 

We have examined the medical work written by J. W. Bright, and take pleasure in 


recommending it to the 


publics. 


LouisTille, June 18,1847. 


as a work well calculated for the use of families. 

JOHN M. TALBOT, M.D. 
■.,& W. H. WAKEFIELD, M. D. 


Dr. Bright : Dear Sir—I have looked into your work at such moments as my urgent 
labors for the seasou would afford me. It appears to be a work of great research, and is 
doubtless one of high merit. It is my wish that the reading public may be most tho¬ 
roughly satisfied of the high appreciation put upon it. B. W. DUDLEY, M. D., 

Lexington, Ky., Fob. 5, 1848. Prof, of Surgery in Transylvania University. 




















1 

I 

> 



\ 


From Physicians in Memphis. 

After a careful examination of Dr. Bright’s “ FAMILY PRACTICE,” I have no hesita¬ 
tion in saying, that the practical precepts recommended by the Author are better adapted 
to the treatment of disease, as it prevails at the Southwest” than any other work of a sim¬ 
ilar character, with which I am acquainted. GEO. It. GRANT, M. D., 

Professor of Theory and Practice of Medicine in the Memphis Medical College. 


From the cursory examination which I have been enabled to make of Dr. Bright’s work 
m the Practice of Physic, I have no hesitation in saying, that it is the best production of 
its kind now published. E. F. WATKINS, M. D 

Memphis, Sept. 1, 1847. 


We have examined Dr. Bright’s “ PLAIN SYSTEM OF MEDICAL PRACTICE,” and 
are satisfied that it is better calculated for a safe guide to Families—especially those remote 
from a scientific physician—than any other work on Domestic Practice. We can therefore 
cheerfully recommend it as a plain and valuable work; in the main, well adapted to the 
purposes designed. „ LEWIS SHANKS, M. D. 

Memphis, Sept. 1, 1S47. JNO. 11. FHAYSElt, M. D. 


From Physicians in Illinois. 

Having been requested to examine u BRIGHT’S FAMILY PRACTICE,” I have satisfied 
myself that it is superior to any work of the kind which S has met my notice, both in its 
description of diseases and principles of treatment. HENRY WING, M. D., 

March 6, 1848. Prof, of Mat. Med., in Jacksonville Med. Coll., HI. 


TO THE PUBLIC.—Having examined Dr. Bright’s “ FAMILY PRACTICE OF MEDI¬ 
CINE” attentively, I have no hesitation in stating, that it is the best work of the kind now 
extant, in the English language, and is admirably adapted to the wants of western people. 
Lexington, Morgan Co., III., March 8, 1848 C. H. KNIGHT, M. D. 



IS EMPHATICALLY THE BOOK FOR EVERY 
FAMILY IN THE UNITED STATES. 

GENTS WANTED in every county of each State. Very large 
profits are allowed, and energetic men have made i'rom $500 to $2,000 per annum 
by selling BltlGHT’S PRACTICE. 

A Cash Capital of Eighty or One Hundred Dollars is requisite, 
as the Publishers sell exclusively for cash, to avoid charging an extra profit on 
those who pay, to make up for losses from those who do not pay. Consequently, 
in no case will books be forwarded without the money in hand. Persons 
wishing to have an agency, will address the Publishers. 


mORTON & GEISWOLD, Publishers, 

LOUISVILLE, KY. 




















REVISED AND ENLARGED 

EDITION OP 

GOODRICH’S 

SCHOOL RE ADE 


The following are supposed to "be some of the peculiar excellencies 
of this SERIES, as a whole. 


1. Completeness, embracing all 
that is required by the pupil from the 
Alphabet to the highest degree of ac¬ 
complishment in the art of reading. 

2. Comprehensiveness, —includ¬ 
ing all the approved helps and facilities 
both for teacher and learner. 

3. Progression, step by step in 
an easy path, without confusion, breaks, 
or other impediments. 

4. Simplicity and manliness of 
sentiment, which constitute the charm 
of Mr. Goodrich’s style, acknowledged 
wherever the English languageis read. 

5. Originality, not a line having 
been borrowed from any other series; 
while every other reader of late date 
has taken more or less, and generally 
without acknowledgment, from them or 
other compositions by the same author. 

6. The Illustrations, of the most 
beautiful character, introduced with 


profusion, in order to interest and excite 
the young mind, and develop its per 
eeptive faculties. 

7. Mechanical Execution— the' 

paper being white and thick, the type 
large and clear, and the binding neat 
and substantial. 

8. Cheapness —being sold at lower 1 
prices than works of interior authors, 
and less merit 

9. Rhetorical Exercises —afford¬ 
ing most copious practical lessons in 
enunciation, articulation, inflection, em¬ 
phasis, and accent. 

10. Moral Tendency —inculcating' 
by familiar precepts and pleasing illus¬ 
trations, a sense of justice, a feeling of 
kindly charity, a reverence for religion, 
a regard for the rights, feelings, inter¬ 
ests and characters of others, a love of 
the works of nature, and a reverent 
affection for their beneficent Author. 


GOODRICH S FIRST SCHOOL 

72 pages, 18 mo. 


READER 


1. It has sixty-nine beautiful engrav¬ 
ings of simple but very interesting 
subjects. 

2. It begins with very short words, 
in very short sentences, accompanying 
an appropriate engraving. In this 
respect the author has pursued the 
plain originally used by him many years 
since in “Peter Parley’s Primer,” and 
subsequently limited and copied by 
other books. 

3. It contains eighteen lessons in 
articulation, comprising all the vowel 
sounds, based on the principle of teach¬ 
ing one thing* only at a time, and 
making the pupil perfect in that one 
thing, by frequent repetition- 

4. Preceding each reading lesson is 
a spelling exercise, containing the more 
difficult words. 


5. In the lessons, Polysyllables are 
neither accented nor divided, for several 
reasons. 1. Words cannot be divided 
without often misleading. 2. The pupil 
should learn to read words as he will 
afterwards meet with them in other 
books. This last reason applies to 1 
the marks sometimes used to dis-' 
tinguish the various sounds of the 
vowels. 

6. It is entirely original, being writ- 1 
ten with the racy, genial and manly 
simplicity peculiar to the author. 

7- _ A knowledge «f points and stops 
is given in the course of the book in 
familiar language. 

8. The type is beautifully clear and 
distinct. 







GOODRICH'S SECOND SCHOOL READER, 

144 pages, 18 mo. 


1. This work, formeily published as 
) the First Reader, having been revised, 
) enlarged and improved, and being now 
' preceded by a new introductory volume, 
' is called the Second Reader. 

( 2. It contains about fifty beautiful 

' engravings. 

3. The lessons are progressive, 
rather harder than in the First Reader, 
less so than in the Third. 

4. It contains 28 lessons on articula¬ 
tion, comprising all the consonant 
sounds of the language—with a view 
to produce by repetition of one thing at 
a time, the attainments of a full, clear, 
distinct enunciation. 


5. Preceding each lesson is a Spell¬ 
ing Exercise, containing the most diffi¬ 
cult words. 

6. (Questions follow each lesson, de¬ 
signed to ensure a thorough understand¬ 
ing of the subject. These may be 
multiplied by the judicious teacher. 

7. A familiar explanation is given of] 
punctuation, articulation, emphasis. SfC. 

8. Its lessons cannot be surpassed 
by any in the language, in point of 
adaptation to the wants of young 
learners. 

9. The type is large and very clear, 
while by a compact arrangement, many 
new lessons have been inserted. 


GOODRICH'S THIRD SCHOOL READER, 

218 pages , 18m<?. 


1. This work, originally published as 
the Second Reader, having been revised 
and enlarged, is now called the “Third 
Reader.’’ 

2. It contains a great variety of 
beautiful engravings. 

3. The lessons are progressive, carry¬ 
ing the learner onward, step by step. 

4. It contains lessons on articulation, 
arranged upon the principle of teaching 
one thing at a time, and of continual 
repetition. 

5. Preceding each lesson is a spelling 
exercise, with the words properly 
divided. 


6. Following each lesson are ques- ( 
tions to excite and interest the pupil. 

7. Much useful information is given , 
respecting the different kinds of type 
used in printing, with lessons in italic 
letters, script, 6fC. 

8. To ensure greater interest in the 
lessons, there is a continuity of narra¬ 
tive between many of the lessons, 
while they are also complete in them¬ 
selves, so as to be read separately. 

9. Prefixed to each lesson is a list, 
! most comm 

of pronunciation. 


GOODRICHS FOURTH SCHOOL READER. 


240 pages , 12 mo. 


1. This work, originally published as 
the Third, having been revised, im¬ 
proved and enlarged to nearly double 
its former contents, is now the Fourth 
Reader. 

2. In this, as in all the others, while 
many facilities are offered to the pro¬ 
gress of the pupil, it is not by taking 
away the necessity of exertion, but by 
bringing his faculties into play, and 
inducing him cheerfully and efficiently 
to help himself. 

3. An exercise in definitions precedes 
each lesson, explaining the meaning of 
ffie words as used in the context 

4. Rules for Reading are prelixed to 
the book. These rules are simple, in¬ 
telligible, and practical, and their effi¬ 


ciency ensured by a peculiar system of 
questions attached to the lessons. 

5. It is abundantly illustrated with ( 
beautiful engravings. 

6. Errors of pronunciation are pointed 
out, and questions asked in connexion < 
with each lesson. 

7 Appended to many of the lessons 1 2 3 4 
are remarks of an explanatory or critical ( 
character. S 

8. It contains exercises in Elocution > 
of a most useful and practical kind. 

9. For simplicity, interest, animation, I 
pure moral tendency, and beauty of • 
style and sentiment, a more delightful, 
body of reading lessons was never, 
before brought together. 








Goodrich’s Fifth School Reader. 


384 pages, 12mo. 


1. This work, formerly the Fourth 
Reader, having been revised, improved, 
and enlarged to nearly double its former 
contents, is now the Fifth Reader. 

2. By.means of a large page, as large, 
in fact, as an ordinary octavo page, 
with clear, compact type, and a neat 
arrangement, nearly twice the matter 
is given of ordinary works, at same ' 
price. 

3. An exercise in Spelling and Defi¬ 
ning precedes each lesson. This exer¬ 
cise contains the words that the learner 
is least likely to know. The definitions 
of upwards of three thousand words, in 
the sense in which they are used in the 


context, are found in this and the pre¬ 
ceding book. 

4. The lessons afford a selection of I 
the very best extracts in the English 
language, and comprise more than usual 
of the highest efforts of modern and 
living masters. 

5. It contains an ample number of < 
pages devoted to rules and exercises in 
Elocution. 

6. By a new arrangement, the se 
quence of the lessons has been made 
more uniformly progressive. 

7. The interests of religion, morality, 
and good manners, have always been 
carefully considered in the selection. 


S. G, Goodrich’s Primary Historical Series, 

FIVE VOLS., EACH 216 pp., 18mo, 

Parley’s Primary History of North America, comprising the United 
States, with notices of Mexico, Canada, Ac. 

Parley’s Primary History of South America, 

Parley s Primary Bistory of Europe. 

Parley's Primary History of Africa, in preparation. 

Parley's Primary History of Asia, including BIBLE HISTORY, in prep. 

These handsome little books form a series of primary histories. The mechan¬ 
ical execution is very creditable to the publishers. The following peculiarities 
render them especially suitable for beginners, for whose use they are intended. 
The remarkable abundance and beauty of the pictorial illustrations. 

The use of maps in the text, thus uniting geography with history. 

The striking simplicity and force of the style, which is also chaste and finished. 
The freshness with which all the topics are invested. 

The introduction of new material, wanting not only in ordinary school books, 
but even in elaborate historical works. 


NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION 

OF THE 


A COLLECTION OF TUNES AND HYMNS 

For the use of Worshipping Assemblies and 
Sunday Schools. 

NUMERAL EDITION.—Compiled from many Authors, by SILAS W. 
LEONARD and A. D. FILLMORE. Revised by Rev. WM. GUNN, of Ivy., 
Rev. THOS. HARRISON, of Ohio, and by the AUTHORS. 

It is therefore "both a Hymn Book and Tune Bock in one. 

Bound in Sheep, or Extra Cloth, 75 cts. I Bound in Super Gilt Cloth §1 25 

Morocco, gilt, $L 00 | “ Turkey Gilt Cloth 2 00 







SCHOOL GRAMMARS. 


i. 


ii. 


The Series consists of Two Parts , 

BUTLER’S INTRODUCTORY LESSORS I N< 


ENGLISH GRAMMAR.—For Beginners. 
BUTLER’S PRACTICAL GRAMMAR. 




Instead of offering to the public their own commendations of these books, the 
publishers have the pleasure of inviting attention to the following communications: 

1. From Rev. J. M’Clintock, D.D., who is well known throughout the United 
States as one of the most accomplished scholars and skilful educators. As a 
professor in the highest institutions of learning, as the author of a most successful 
series of classical text books, and as editor of the Quarterly Review, published 
by the Northern Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of New York, his 
reputation is as wide as the country. 

“ Butler's ‘ Practical Grammar op the English Language,’ is an exceedingly well- 
conceived and well-executed book. It is scientific, not only in its groundwork (which 
every elementary book ought to be), but also in its practical methods and devices, where 
empiricism is too often substituted for science. As every lesson can be put to use at once, 
the learner makes real progress with every page. I have seen no Elementary English 
Grammar that pleases me better—or so well. 

JOIIN M’CLINTOCK 

New York, March 28, 1849. 


2. From George B. Emerson, of Boston, whose commendation of any text 
book is conclusive evidence of its great merits. He stands foremost among the 
men to whom New England looks up, as the highest authority in all matters 
connected with education. 

Dear Sir —I have hardly had an hour since I received your note accompanying this 
Grammar, which was not absolutely bespoken for some other purpose. On looking over 
the book rapidly, I see many things in it which are excellent. The definitions are remark¬ 
ably simple and clear ; the rules are short and comprehensive ; and the arrangement is so 
good, and the exercises so well selected, that a tolerable teacher might be very successful 
in teaching the principles of English Grammar by the aid of it. It forms, moreover, in 
the way it is intended to be used, what every Grammar for beginners ought to form—an 
introduction to the art and practice of composition. 

The names of the tenses are far more sensible and philosophical than those found in 
most Grammars, which indeed are often quite wrong and absurd; and the principles of ( 
Syntax and of Prosody are singularly well condensed, without becoming too abstract and 
obscure. In a future edition, I hope he will give the same condensation to the rules for 
Punctuation. I am, dear sir, very truly yours, 

Oct. 27,1845. GEO. B. EMERSON. 

To J. G. Palfrey, LL.D., D.D., Secretary of State. 

3. The following are extracts from the opinions of distinguished scholars :— 


From E. D. North, Prof, of Rhetoric 
in Yale College. 

“ It is the most scholarly and philosophic 
Grammar that I know.” 

A. D. Lord, of Ohio. 

“ I consider it one of the best works we 
have on the subject.” 

Rev. B. P. Aydelote, of Cincinnati. 

“ An improvement, in every respect, upon 
preceding works.” 

Rich. H. Lee, Prof. Washington Coll. 

“ I heartily recommend it as the best now 
to be got.” 


John Lewis, of Llangollen. 

“ It is really what its title indicates—A 
Practical Grammar.” 

Jno. B. L. Soule, Terre Haute. 

“ Far in advance of any now in use.” 

E. A. Smith, Sup’t of Common Schools, 
Statetown, N. Y. 

“I prefer it before Brown’s and Bul¬ 
lions’.” 

Most* Soule, North B rid,? ton- 
“My beau ideal of an English Gram¬ 
mar.” 








Mental and Vocal Philosophy, for the Development 
x of the Mind and Body. 

COMPRISING 

1. Two or Three Hundred of the Choicest Anecdotes in our Language. 

2. Three Thousand Oratorical and Poetical Readings and Recitations. 

3. Five Thousand Proverbs, Maxims, Sayings , Themes, and Laconics. 

4. And Several Hundred Elegant Engravings, to Illustrate the Work. 

IT CONTAINS: 

I. All the Principles of Elocution, in will Feel and Think he must have, and 
accordance with Physiological and Men- I cannot do without it. 
tal Science : II. SIX FULL LENGTH 
VIEWS of the Nerves of Organic Life, 
of Respiration, of the Nerves of Sense 
and Motion, and of all the Muscles and 
Bones of the whole Body, clothed and 
unclothed: III. Natural and Deformed 
Chests, Positions of Ladies and Gentle¬ 
men, of their Bodies, Hands, Arms, and 
Feet, and ONE HUNDRED Full 
Length Oratorical and Poetical Por¬ 
traits: IV. FORTY-FOUR MOUTHS, 
showing every position to produce the 
FORTY-FOUR sounds of our Lan¬ 
guage: V. The Common, and New 
Mode of Learning the Letters, of Spell¬ 
ing, and of Teaching Children to Read, 
involving the Science of Phonology: 

VI. Several Hundred Jaw or Muscle- 
Breakers, for Training the Voice, while 
“Laughter holds both of his sides.” 

VII. FIFTY ENGRAVINGS, exhib¬ 
iting all the Phases of Passion, with 
appropriate examples to illustrate them: 

VIII. An immense number of &ues- 
tions and Subjects suggested for Ly¬ 
ceums, Debating Societies, and Social 
Parties: IX. The largest and best col¬ 
lection of READINGS, RECITA¬ 
TIONS, and DECLAMATIONS, in¬ 
cluding those interspei'sed with his 
Popular Lectures, involving every va¬ 
riety of Thought and Feeling, and 
ranging from the deepest Tragedy to 
the highest Comedy; with something 
on every page, calculated to make one 
serious and gay: X. By being printed 
in double columns, and certain kinds of 
type, it is designed, on philosophical 
principles, to facilitate the arts of Read¬ 
ing, i\ emorizing, and the Preservation 
of the Eyesight—three important points 
of attainment: XI. It is expressly pre¬ 
wired for use in all SCHOOLS, ACAD¬ 
EMIES, and COLLEGES. Male and 
Female; and also with particular ref¬ 
erence to Private Readers and Learn- 

XII. In a word, it ij^ju^such #T> 



book, as every oni, havin 


ITS COMPARATIVE MERITS. 

I. An examination of its Contents \ 
and their Arrangement, will enable one S 
to institute a comparison between this J 
work, and all others on the-same subject. > 

II. It is in perfect harmony with ) 

what is known of all that is NATURAL, ? 
HUMAN, and DIVINE. I 

III. Its foundations are deeply laid ( 

in the Philosophy of Mind and Voice- 

Spirit and Matter; and the principles 
are of a far-reaching and comprehensive 
nature, tending to produce a great rev¬ 
olution in the Art of Reading and 
Speaking with Science and Effect, and 
the development of tli£_ WHOLE 
MAN, Soul, Mind, and Bo 

IV. Its method is that of ANALYSIS 
and SYNTHESIS, and I is altogether 
Progressive and Practical in itk charac¬ 
teristics. 

V. Although but ONE Elocutionary 
Principle is presented, specifically, on \ 
any page, yet each Elemenlan’ page S 
contains, incidentally, ALL the Princi- - 
pies of Elocution. 

VI. These Principles have never 
been known to fail, when faithfully ap¬ 
plied, to enable one to Read. Speak, 
and Blow on Wind Instruments, for t 
hours in succession, without Hoarse ( 
ness, or injurious Exhaustion; and they ( 
tend to the Preservation from, and Cure 
of Diseases of the Throat and Lungs 
Dyspepsia, and other Complaints inci¬ 
dental to Public Speaking, and a Sen 
entary Life. 

VII. It is BEAUTIFULLY and 
SUBSTANTIALLY got up in the oc¬ 
tavo form, of between three and four 
hundred pages, and includes a greater 
variety of Prose and Poetry than any 
other system of Elocution, and conta 
DOUBLE the amount of reading mat¬ 
ter found in any similar work in the 
Lffikted States, and yet—THE PRICE 
irpNlY ONE DOLLAR. 


















* * ^ VWV 

•^L'>_ rp* ,>i^:. °o +* 


A , 
^ <*tv o 





* ' A \ ” 4 * * * 
♦ O C 0- ®4 <£. 

-r O O’ • t _ £ ^^ w * *p 

, b^ 




J. 0-7 *. 


0 ,0 


* 



ti» * 1 aI' Q- < 

<f>. • - ’ -V ®*. 

% **,*♦ < 

» **V 

° cfi ^ 1 

r * <P o 'V * ) 

*' r y 1 

,o* ^o 

*/3bI^* ♦> <V o' 3 


AV »S> ' ' 1 * 4 *$ v CV * 

1 *> Y * ° * <N ***•/■ *^c> 

^ A. •*> 




^ vaB? 4 /'\ l 

r^fT’ 0 f * 0 •.„., 

'% %, f 0 * ..^ V - 

* •y'. C * d * O • 

*** o' • - *o K 



s <j 5 ^ 

»* ^ ** 



• A < S .o 1 

G °^" ° ♦ ^ ^ 0 ^ |j 



° *° V 

0 * 0 ° ^ ** 

A U <$> * i 1 

I* . » * o _ 



* *P 

* ~yr 

*P> 4 
-** 0 * 

> ^5 ^ 'o 

** *r cv - 

•o, 

c\ * « » * o *"% A v ... 

V >!r5» . ^ ^ 

° 0 ^ A*' - ^ . < 

< - - 

r\ ° Y// s §^\\Ss > * - ^^uuiuj^A o c. ^ * 

/V & m $i=WM=f cp vP. «» 

^ a ^ J\yMg\Jr * «? A o 

, ^ ,v <0 O 'o . * x A| 

° %r C° O ,-b- .< 

° v . ^ cr * ^o • ■ 

* 'l o. • G * BS rJ ^- ' 

\ ' ■<£ k » 


^/> ♦ 
AP V 




g; -. 




> 0- v V 


, » f)*' V* «r . » «. 1 ^ • <\ * 

0 *° ... % " A* ... °^ A° 











VW V”V 

^ ^ .Ul. . ... _ •• * 


5 








„ «5 : 

^ a)' C' *~ 

^ * •' .V ° * 



„ ^ ,o v t « •■ v; * *^o ^ o°*°♦ 

* Vy 0 * ijeVT^bb * ° ' 

^o* :£mht\ W :. 

° \0 v% 

% ^ <K « 

• rv " 

O, "♦ ,To 0 *cP 

*•*' % ^ ^ ' v v .— 

. SJ> .’aVa'* -^. .♦ *-■ 

: **$* •J^©^: "W • 

• - - * 

#. °.' v <i?w -r ^ \ 

'°'‘‘ aV" <** ..- A V ... 

* °o j# .^i % \ C° °o y .• 0 

*^0* ’’o k ° 



* O 

* 4 ? <P> o 

•. * «o 





;mw. ^Vvr 










































